Narrative:

Cleared to taxi from gate to runway 36L via taxiway east. Abeam taxiway E13 I was told to hold short of taxiway E6 and I acknowledged. As I was in the middle of a taxi checklist I assumed (mistakenly) that taxiway E6 must be somewhere further down taxiway east and I would check the map when the checklist was completed. Turns out that the next taxiway south of taxiway E13 was taxiway E6 and I stopped as further instructed by ground control. This is a very confusing airport as 1) the txwys are not numbered in standard ascending or descending order, and 2) the actual hold short point is not easily identifiable with 2 intersecting high speed turnoffs. There was an aircraft exiting at taxiway E6 after landing but there was no conflict. In this situation I have learned to never assume logic or standardization to airport layout or taxiway numbering. Nevertheless, this situation is unacceptable and should be addressed. Air carrier pilots who travel to a multitude of airports and are sometimes under time or WX pressures need to expect logical and standard numbering to avoid unnecessary problems. Sometimes, when I look at airport diagrams, I wonder if anyone asked the opinion of the people who actually use airports what their opinions and needs were. I think, for the most part, not.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DC9-50 ACFT TAXIING ON TXWY E. ABEAM TXWY E13 GND CTLR TOLD FLC TO HOLD SHORT OF TXWY E6. THINKING THE NUMBERING WAS IN SEQUENCE THEY DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THE NEXT EXIT WAS TXWY E6 WHEN CTLR INSTRUCTED THEM TO STOP AS AN ACFT EXITED THE RWY AT TXWY E6.

Narrative: CLRED TO TAXI FROM GATE TO RWY 36L VIA TXWY E. ABEAM TXWY E13 I WAS TOLD TO HOLD SHORT OF TXWY E6 AND I ACKNOWLEDGED. AS I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF A TAXI CHKLIST I ASSUMED (MISTAKENLY) THAT TXWY E6 MUST BE SOMEWHERE FURTHER DOWN TXWY E AND I WOULD CHK THE MAP WHEN THE CHKLIST WAS COMPLETED. TURNS OUT THAT THE NEXT TXWY S OF TXWY E13 WAS TXWY E6 AND I STOPPED AS FURTHER INSTRUCTED BY GND CTL. THIS IS A VERY CONFUSING ARPT AS 1) THE TXWYS ARE NOT NUMBERED IN STANDARD ASCENDING OR DSNDING ORDER, AND 2) THE ACTUAL HOLD SHORT POINT IS NOT EASILY IDENTIFIABLE WITH 2 INTERSECTING HIGH SPD TURNOFFS. THERE WAS AN ACFT EXITING AT TXWY E6 AFTER LNDG BUT THERE WAS NO CONFLICT. IN THIS SIT I HAVE LEARNED TO NEVER ASSUME LOGIC OR STANDARDIZATION TO ARPT LAYOUT OR TXWY NUMBERING. NEVERTHELESS, THIS SIT IS UNACCEPTABLE AND SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. ACR PLTS WHO TRAVEL TO A MULTITUDE OF ARPTS AND ARE SOMETIMES UNDER TIME OR WX PRESSURES NEED TO EXPECT LOGICAL AND STANDARD NUMBERING TO AVOID UNNECESSARY PROBS. SOMETIMES, WHEN I LOOK AT ARPT DIAGRAMS, I WONDER IF ANYONE ASKED THE OPINION OF THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY USE ARPTS WHAT THEIR OPINIONS AND NEEDS WERE. I THINK, FOR THE MOST PART, NOT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.