Narrative:

I was working local west; 27L/17. Aircraft X was an arrival whom I had instructed to hold short of juliet on zulu and contact ramp 1. The ramp controller instructed aircraft X to turn onto kilo and hold short of tango alpha. No attempt was made by the ramp controller to coordinate the use of the movement area; or to alert us to the fact that aircraft X's gate was occupied; facts which I became aware of only after noticing aircraft X's deviation and asking ramp for an explanation. Shortly thereafter; I observed another aircraft being pushed back onto juliet; nose west; which put the aircraft in opposition to the flow of traffic. The ramp controller's coordination was haphazard and incomplete; leaving the entire tower team in a state of confusion about ramp's intentions. Both the flm and I attempted to coordinate a plan for getting the arrival aircraft; now stacking up on zulu; past the pair of heavies which were effectively blocking both kilo and juliet. The ramp controller disregarded our instructions and began instructing arrival aircraft to contact ground control. The workload for myself; the flm; and the ground controller were significantly increased. This was a simple scenario which could have been easily resolved if the ramp tower had shared information with us and asked permission prior to taxiing an aircraft on the movement area.the close proximity of juliet and kilo to runway 27R means that even under ideal conditions; efficient use of the taxiways requires frequent coordination between ramp tower and the FAA tower. If we were to take control of the ramp areas; or at least take control of juliet; we would be in a position to effect a more efficient ground operation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PHL Controller reported ramp control utilized movement area without coordination which resulted in vehicle and aircraft conflicts. PHL Controller reported this as a continuing trend.

Narrative: I was working Local West; 27L/17. Aircraft X was an arrival whom I had instructed to hold short of Juliet on Zulu and contact Ramp 1. The Ramp Controller instructed Aircraft X to turn onto Kilo and hold short of Tango Alpha. No attempt was made by the Ramp Controller to coordinate the use of the movement area; or to alert us to the fact that Aircraft X's gate was occupied; facts which I became aware of only after noticing Aircraft X's deviation and asking Ramp for an explanation. Shortly thereafter; I observed another aircraft being pushed back onto Juliet; nose west; which put the aircraft in opposition to the flow of traffic. The Ramp Controller's coordination was haphazard and incomplete; leaving the entire tower team in a state of confusion about Ramp's intentions. Both the FLM and I attempted to coordinate a plan for getting the arrival aircraft; now stacking up on Zulu; past the pair of heavies which were effectively blocking both Kilo and Juliet. The Ramp Controller disregarded our instructions and began instructing arrival aircraft to contact ground control. The workload for myself; the FLM; and the Ground Controller were significantly increased. This was a simple scenario which could have been easily resolved if the ramp tower had shared information with us and asked permission prior to taxiing an aircraft on the movement area.The close proximity of Juliet and Kilo to Runway 27R means that even under ideal conditions; efficient use of the taxiways requires frequent coordination between Ramp Tower and the FAA Tower. If we were to take control of the ramp areas; or at least take control of Juliet; we would be in a position to effect a more efficient ground operation.

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.