Narrative:

Aircraft X was holding in position on runway 01R and was told by local control; 'aircraft X RNAV to tydye; runway 01R cleared for takeoff.' the pilot keyed up the frequency and spent approximately 10 seconds trying to mumble his way through the RNAV phraseology. He was wondering out loud on frequency if he shouldn't have been issued 'RNAV to tipre' which is the first fix depicted on his flight plan that was issued from clearance delivery before realizing that tydye was the first fix off of the runway; then realizing it was not depicted on the pdr portion of the clearance; and then finally saying 'cleared for takeoff.' by this time; so much time had passed that the local control had to immediately cancel his takeoff clearance to prevent a runway incursion with the aircraft arriving on runways 28. I was the controller being relieved. The RNAV phraseology is useless in our normal L28/D01 configuration and only adds to frequency congestion while also creating confusion for pilots and controllers alike. It makes runway incursions more likely as it takes longer to clear aircraft for takeoff; and when we are busy we frequently only have a few second window to get those planes rolling before they need to be shut down for aircraft that are landing on the crossing runways. The extra phraseology not only occupies time on frequency; but it slows down the pilot's reaction times as they aren't pushing the throttles forward right when they are cleared for takeoff; but rather taking time to check their routing in their FMS before engaging the throttles. In an airport such as ours where; during busy rushes; each takeoff clearance only has about a 3-4 second window in which it can happen; that extra time is unacceptable and a distinct safety hazard. The extra 'tightness' of what are already tight holes can cause controllers to have tunnel vision and focus more on whether that operation is going to work; while becoming distracted away from other tasks and aircraft that also require attention to maintain separation.I recommend that we remove the 'RNAV to...' phraseology from being required when there aren't multiple possible fixes to RNAV to on a given SID. Knowing that aircraft has received and acknowledged the clearance is more than sufficient. The 'RNAV to' phraseology only adds confusion and creates more opportunities for errors from both pilots and controllers. It is unnecessary and unsafe and shouldn't be required when there is only one RNAV to point on a given SID.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SFO Local Controller reported a pilot took too long to read back their RNAV departure instructions with their takeoff clearance. The Controller had to cancel the clearance.

Narrative: Aircraft X was holding in position on Runway 01R and was told by Local Control; 'Aircraft X RNAV to TYDYE; RWY 01R cleared for takeoff.' The pilot keyed up the frequency and spent approximately 10 seconds trying to mumble his way through the RNAV phraseology. He was wondering out loud on frequency if he shouldn't have been issued 'RNAV to TIPRE' which is the first fix depicted on his flight plan that was issued from Clearance Delivery before realizing that TYDYE was the first fix off of the runway; then realizing it was not depicted on the PDR portion of the clearance; and then finally saying 'cleared for takeoff.' By this time; so much time had passed that the Local Control had to immediately cancel his takeoff clearance to prevent a runway incursion with the aircraft arriving on runways 28. I was the controller being relieved. The RNAV phraseology is useless in our normal L28/D01 configuration and only adds to frequency congestion while also creating confusion for pilots and controllers alike. It makes runway incursions more likely as it takes longer to clear aircraft for takeoff; and when we are busy we frequently only have a few second window to get those planes rolling before they need to be shut down for aircraft that are landing on the crossing runways. The extra phraseology not only occupies time on frequency; but it slows down the pilot's reaction times as they aren't pushing the throttles forward right when they are cleared for takeoff; but rather taking time to check their routing in their FMS before engaging the throttles. In an airport such as ours where; during busy rushes; each takeoff clearance only has about a 3-4 second window in which it can happen; that extra time is unacceptable and a distinct safety hazard. The extra 'tightness' of what are already tight holes can cause controllers to have tunnel vision and focus more on whether that operation is going to work; while becoming distracted away from other tasks and aircraft that also require attention to maintain separation.I recommend that we remove the 'RNAV to...' phraseology from being required when there aren't multiple possible fixes to RNAV to on a given SID. Knowing that aircraft has received and acknowledged the clearance is more than sufficient. The 'RNAV to' phraseology only adds confusion and creates more opportunities for errors from both pilots and controllers. It is unnecessary and unsafe and shouldn't be required when there is only one RNAV to point on a given SID.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.