Narrative:

There was a considerable amount of difficulty with the taxi clearance from the cargo facilities to the active runway for departure. After the initial clearance, tpe ground control issued a revised clearance in broken english to back taxi on runway 5R to avoid construction. I didn't totally understand the transmission, so I asked the first officer if he understood what was said. He indicated that he did, and told me to make a right turn to intercept runway 5 for back taxi. Ground control then advised us that we had turned wrong direction and had entered the wrong runway 5. According to the charts, there is only 1 runway 5 at the tpe airport. There is no indication whatsoever of a closed runway 5R. What they are referencing as runway 5R simply shows as a taxiway on the airport diagram. In the difficult to understand transmission, we were told to back taxi on runway 5, so we turned to intercept and back taxi on the only runway 5 showing on the charts. Tpe ground control is issuing taxi clrncs based on and referencing a closed runway that does not exist on any taxi or airport chart. Unfortunately, the first officer became agitated with the ground controller. He maintained a professional profile, but his tone and attitude was one of being quite tense. There was additional controversy over another clearance the first officer didn't think was phrased correctly either, although no transgressions occurred at that point. I consider him an excellent first officer and pilot, but he clearly became frustrated with tpe during this occurrence.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A RWY INCURSION DURING A NIGHT OP WHEN A B747 CARGO FLT TAXIES ONTO RWY 5L WHEN GIVEN CLRNC TO BACK TAXI ON RWY 5R AT RCTP, FO.

Narrative: THERE WAS A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF DIFFICULTY WITH THE TAXI CLRNC FROM THE CARGO FACILITIES TO THE ACTIVE RWY FOR DEP. AFTER THE INITIAL CLRNC, TPE GND CTL ISSUED A REVISED CLRNC IN BROKEN ENGLISH TO BACK TAXI ON RWY 5R TO AVOID CONSTRUCTION. I DIDN'T TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE XMISSION, SO I ASKED THE FO IF HE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS SAID. HE INDICATED THAT HE DID, AND TOLD ME TO MAKE A R TURN TO INTERCEPT RWY 5 FOR BACK TAXI. GND CTL THEN ADVISED US THAT WE HAD TURNED WRONG DIRECTION AND HAD ENTERED THE WRONG RWY 5. ACCORDING TO THE CHARTS, THERE IS ONLY 1 RWY 5 AT THE TPE ARPT. THERE IS NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER OF A CLOSED RWY 5R. WHAT THEY ARE REFING AS RWY 5R SIMPLY SHOWS AS A TXWY ON THE ARPT DIAGRAM. IN THE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND XMISSION, WE WERE TOLD TO BACK TAXI ON RWY 5, SO WE TURNED TO INTERCEPT AND BACK TAXI ON THE ONLY RWY 5 SHOWING ON THE CHARTS. TPE GND CTL IS ISSUING TAXI CLRNCS BASED ON AND REFING A CLOSED RWY THAT DOES NOT EXIST ON ANY TAXI OR ARPT CHART. UNFORTUNATELY, THE FO BECAME AGITATED WITH THE GND CTLR. HE MAINTAINED A PROFESSIONAL PROFILE, BUT HIS TONE AND ATTITUDE WAS ONE OF BEING QUITE TENSE. THERE WAS ADDITIONAL CONTROVERSY OVER ANOTHER CLRNC THE FO DIDN'T THINK WAS PHRASED CORRECTLY EITHER, ALTHOUGH NO TRANSGRESSIONS OCCURRED AT THAT POINT. I CONSIDER HIM AN EXCELLENT FO AND PLT, BUT HE CLRLY BECAME FRUSTRATED WITH TPE DURING THIS OCCURRENCE.

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.