Narrative:

Local procedures require pilots to advise ground control when their engine run-up is complete (broadcast on ATIS). Upon receiving such an advisory; the ground controller passes departure information to the local controller and instructs the pilot to 'monitor tower frequency.' this uncommon procedure causes much confusion with non-locally based users. Many misinterpret their 'monitor' instruction as a take off clearance and commit a runway incursion. Ground controller instructed pilot of an SR22 to monitor tower frequency; and passed a flight strip to me (local controller). I issued climb out instructions and a take off clearance. I noticed the aircraft began moving before I even finished my transmission. I received no read back. As the aircraft was beginning take off roll; I asked the pilot if they copied my clearance; but still got no response. The ground controller observed this and tried to raise the pilot on their frequency. The pilot was still there. The ground controller informed the pilot that they had not received a take off clearance and needed to be on tower frequency. The closest inbound aircraft was 7 miles out and 100 KTS ground speed; so I planned to merely reissue the take off clearance since the SR22 had rolled down the runway (6;004 ft long) only a few hundred feet and had plenty of available distance remaining for a safe departure. The SR22 reversed course and taxied clear of the runway. Several attempts to raise the pilot during this process were unsuccessful. Once back in the run up area; the pilot contacted me on the correct frequency. I reissued the climb out instructions and take off clearance. The pilot departed without further incident. Based on the ground controller's transmission to the pilot; I suspect the pilot mistook the 'monitor tower' instruction as a take off clearance; but I did not investigate this or query the pilot further. [I asked] the controller in charge (controller in charge) if they intended to file a pilot deviation report (so I could advise the pilot before transferring them to departure control for radar advisories). Controller in charge felt it was a 'no harm - no foul' situation. Safety was not compromised; so no. I did not question [the controller in charge's] decision. Discontinue local procedure to have pilots advise ground control when their run up is complete. Discontinue local procedure of ground controller instructing pilots to monitor tower frequency in expectation of a take off clearance. All pilots should contact local control directly; as is done at the overwhelming majority of towers in the country. Unfamiliarity with this unique procedure results in several runway incursions per year.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ORL Controller voiced concern regarding the local procedure that requires aircraft that have completed their run up to communicate with Ground Control advising same prior to Local Control. The reporter claims this unusual procedure has resulted in a number of runway incursions.

Narrative: Local procedures require pilots to advise Ground Control when their engine run-up is complete (broadcast on ATIS). Upon receiving such an advisory; the Ground Controller passes departure information to the Local Controller and instructs the pilot to 'monitor Tower frequency.' This uncommon procedure causes much confusion with non-locally based users. Many misinterpret their 'monitor' instruction as a take off clearance and commit a runway incursion. Ground Controller instructed pilot of an SR22 to monitor Tower frequency; and passed a flight strip to me (Local Controller). I issued climb out instructions and a take off clearance. I noticed the aircraft began moving before I even finished my transmission. I received no read back. As the aircraft was beginning take off roll; I asked the pilot if they copied my clearance; but still got no response. The Ground Controller observed this and tried to raise the pilot on their frequency. The pilot was still there. The Ground Controller informed the pilot that they had not received a take off clearance and needed to be on Tower frequency. The closest inbound aircraft was 7 miles out and 100 KTS ground speed; so I planned to merely reissue the take off clearance since the SR22 had rolled down the runway (6;004 FT long) only a few hundred feet and had plenty of available distance remaining for a safe departure. The SR22 reversed course and taxied clear of the runway. Several attempts to raise the pilot during this process were unsuccessful. Once back in the run up area; the pilot contacted me on the correct frequency. I reissued the climb out instructions and take off clearance. The pilot departed without further incident. Based on the Ground Controller's transmission to the pilot; I suspect the pilot mistook the 'monitor Tower' instruction as a take off clearance; but I did not investigate this or query the pilot further. [I asked] the Controller in Charge (CIC) if they intended to file a Pilot Deviation Report (so I could advise the pilot before transferring them to Departure Control for RADAR advisories). CIC felt it was a 'no harm - no foul' situation. Safety was not compromised; so no. I did not question [the CIC's] decision. Discontinue local procedure to have pilots advise Ground Control when their run up is complete. Discontinue local procedure of Ground Controller instructing pilots to monitor Tower frequency in expectation of a take off clearance. All pilots should contact Local Control directly; as is done at the overwhelming majority of Towers in the country. Unfamiliarity with this unique procedure results in several runway incursions per year.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.