Narrative:

After completing a visual approach and landing to runway 29R, I exited runway 29R at highspd taxiway left, we crossed runway 29L and continued to the gate on the reverse of taxiway left. At the intersection of taxiway left and taxiway B, I stopped the aircraft and taxi clearance to the gate was requested. As we had exited runway 29R, I understood the tower to clear us to our gate and to monitor ground. A clearance to cross runway 29L was also part of this clearance. After the 'after landing' checklist was called for and subsequently completed, my first officer stated that we needed to contact fresno ground. I immediately stopped my taxi at the intersection of taxiway left and taxiway B and the first officer queried fresno ground for taxi clearance. At the end of the request, the first officer added an apology. The reply from ground was a single 'okay' in a tone that conveyed annoyance. I then told the ground that I understood us to be cleared to the gate and to monitor the ground frequency. A similar response was given to my apology. Later in the evening, my first officer and I discussed the events and wondered if we were ever given a taxi clearance to our gate by either tower or ground. It is common for nighttime operations to be cleared to gates and monitor ground frequencys after clearing active runways. In fact, this is the norm for my experience at the fresno airport. In example, one evening we were cleared by approach control for a visual approach, landing on runway 29R, taxi across runway 29L, and taxi to the gate all on his frequency and while still several mi from the airport. I cite this only to show that different taxi clrncs and landing clrncs can be issued depending on the controllers. Also, clearance to the gate and monitoring of the ground frequency being the most common. The first lesson here is how complacency can show up anywhere in your work, no matter how vigilant and careful you attempt to remain. I honestly thought I had heard the tower clearance as previously stated, and that I was doing exactly what I was told to do. Secondly, readbacks of clrncs are paramount, legally required to the issuing agency or controller, and simply good practice to repeat what you heard to your copilot so that everyone understands the same course of action. And thirdly, the lack of standardization of various ATC towers can help to lead to this type of misunderstanding. Even though singular or dual controllers operating multiple frequencys during off peak times is very efficient at some airports, the different formats these controllers use to control their traffic can contribute to such a situation when other circumstances already exist.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN EMB120 FLC TAXIES TOWARDS THE GATE WITHOUT MONITORING GND CTL AS REQUESTED BY TWR. PIC IS NOT CERTAIN AS TO THE CLRNC LIMIT IN THIS INCIDENT.

Narrative: AFTER COMPLETING A VISUAL APCH AND LNDG TO RWY 29R, I EXITED RWY 29R AT HIGHSPD TXWY L, WE CROSSED RWY 29L AND CONTINUED TO THE GATE ON THE REVERSE OF TXWY L. AT THE INTXN OF TXWY L AND TXWY B, I STOPPED THE ACFT AND TAXI CLRNC TO THE GATE WAS REQUESTED. AS WE HAD EXITED RWY 29R, I UNDERSTOOD THE TWR TO CLR US TO OUR GATE AND TO MONITOR GND. A CLRNC TO CROSS RWY 29L WAS ALSO PART OF THIS CLRNC. AFTER THE 'AFTER LNDG' CHKLIST WAS CALLED FOR AND SUBSEQUENTLY COMPLETED, MY FO STATED THAT WE NEEDED TO CONTACT FRESNO GND. I IMMEDIATELY STOPPED MY TAXI AT THE INTXN OF TXWY L AND TXWY B AND THE FO QUERIED FRESNO GND FOR TAXI CLRNC. AT THE END OF THE REQUEST, THE FO ADDED AN APOLOGY. THE REPLY FROM GND WAS A SINGLE 'OKAY' IN A TONE THAT CONVEYED ANNOYANCE. I THEN TOLD THE GND THAT I UNDERSTOOD US TO BE CLRED TO THE GATE AND TO MONITOR THE GND FREQ. A SIMILAR RESPONSE WAS GIVEN TO MY APOLOGY. LATER IN THE EVENING, MY FO AND I DISCUSSED THE EVENTS AND WONDERED IF WE WERE EVER GIVEN A TAXI CLRNC TO OUR GATE BY EITHER TWR OR GND. IT IS COMMON FOR NIGHTTIME OPS TO BE CLRED TO GATES AND MONITOR GND FREQS AFTER CLRING ACTIVE RWYS. IN FACT, THIS IS THE NORM FOR MY EXPERIENCE AT THE FRESNO ARPT. IN EXAMPLE, ONE EVENING WE WERE CLRED BY APCH CTL FOR A VISUAL APCH, LNDG ON RWY 29R, TAXI ACROSS RWY 29L, AND TAXI TO THE GATE ALL ON HIS FREQ AND WHILE STILL SEVERAL MI FROM THE ARPT. I CITE THIS ONLY TO SHOW THAT DIFFERENT TAXI CLRNCS AND LNDG CLRNCS CAN BE ISSUED DEPENDING ON THE CTLRS. ALSO, CLRNC TO THE GATE AND MONITORING OF THE GND FREQ BEING THE MOST COMMON. THE FIRST LESSON HERE IS HOW COMPLACENCY CAN SHOW UP ANYWHERE IN YOUR WORK, NO MATTER HOW VIGILANT AND CAREFUL YOU ATTEMPT TO REMAIN. I HONESTLY THOUGHT I HAD HEARD THE TWR CLRNC AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, AND THAT I WAS DOING EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TOLD TO DO. SECONDLY, READBACKS OF CLRNCS ARE PARAMOUNT, LEGALLY REQUIRED TO THE ISSUING AGENCY OR CTLR, AND SIMPLY GOOD PRACTICE TO REPEAT WHAT YOU HEARD TO YOUR COPLT SO THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THE SAME COURSE OF ACTION. AND THIRDLY, THE LACK OF STANDARDIZATION OF VARIOUS ATC TWRS CAN HELP TO LEAD TO THIS TYPE OF MISUNDERSTANDING. EVEN THOUGH SINGULAR OR DUAL CTLRS OPERATING MULTIPLE FREQS DURING OFF PEAK TIMES IS VERY EFFICIENT AT SOME ARPTS, THE DIFFERENT FORMATS THESE CTLRS USE TO CTL THEIR TFC CAN CONTRIBUTE TO SUCH A SIT WHEN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ALREADY EXIST.

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.