Narrative:

Sjc ATCT has an unsafe procedure for getting aircraft from the runway 29 runup area to runway 29 for takeoff. The sjc airport requires pilots in the runway 29 runup area to call ground control for permission to taxi across taxiway V to runway 29 for takeoff. This is nonstandard for most airports. Most airports have aircraft in the runup area contact local control for takeoff clearance from the runup area. At most airports the pilots need to move on a taxiway to get onto the active runway, but they are not required to contact ground control to do so. Therefore, sjc's procedure is nonstandard. This has caused numerous pltdevs to be filed against pilots and, therefore, has resulted in several unsafe sits developing. It would be safer if pilots were instructed by ATC voice and airport signs to contact the local controller from the runway 29 runup area for takeoff clearance. The local controller could visually determine that taxiway V was clear before clearing the aircraft onto runway 29. This procedure would be standard, ie, what pilots are used to or expecting. It would result in fewer pltdevs and fewer unsafe sits on runway 29. Sjc has had more than its share of runway incursions. I believe this change would contribute to a reduction in runway incursion at sjc. Callback conversation with reporter reveals the following information: reporter stated a sign near the runup area advises pilots to contact ground control when ready for takeoff, but is not always seen by pilots. This analyst does not agree with the reporter that sjc has a nonstandard procedure and should use the same procedure that other airports are using. The run-up area is across an active taxiway. The reporter explained his 'sjc has more than its share of runway incursions' refers to hold line xings. This comment could be debated since it has nothing to do with the runup area procedure.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RUNUP AREA FOR RWY 29 AT SJC IS LOCATED ACROSS TXWY V AND THE TWR REQUIRES ACFT TO CONTACT GND CTL AFTER RUNUP IS COMPLETE FOR CLRNC TO THE RWY.

Narrative: SJC ATCT HAS AN UNSAFE PROC FOR GETTING ACFT FROM THE RWY 29 RUNUP AREA TO RWY 29 FOR TKOF. THE SJC ARPT REQUIRES PLTS IN THE RWY 29 RUNUP AREA TO CALL GND CTL FOR PERMISSION TO TAXI ACROSS TXWY V TO RWY 29 FOR TKOF. THIS IS NONSTANDARD FOR MOST ARPTS. MOST ARPTS HAVE ACFT IN THE RUNUP AREA CONTACT LCL CTL FOR TKOF CLRNC FROM THE RUNUP AREA. AT MOST ARPTS THE PLTS NEED TO MOVE ON A TXWY TO GET ONTO THE ACTIVE RWY, BUT THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO CONTACT GND CTL TO DO SO. THEREFORE, SJC'S PROC IS NONSTANDARD. THIS HAS CAUSED NUMEROUS PLTDEVS TO BE FILED AGAINST PLTS AND, THEREFORE, HAS RESULTED IN SEVERAL UNSAFE SITS DEVELOPING. IT WOULD BE SAFER IF PLTS WERE INSTRUCTED BY ATC VOICE AND ARPT SIGNS TO CONTACT THE LCL CTLR FROM THE RWY 29 RUNUP AREA FOR TKOF CLRNC. THE LCL CTLR COULD VISUALLY DETERMINE THAT TXWY V WAS CLR BEFORE CLRING THE ACFT ONTO RWY 29. THIS PROC WOULD BE STANDARD, IE, WHAT PLTS ARE USED TO OR EXPECTING. IT WOULD RESULT IN FEWER PLTDEVS AND FEWER UNSAFE SITS ON RWY 29. SJC HAS HAD MORE THAN ITS SHARE OF RWY INCURSIONS. I BELIEVE THIS CHANGE WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO A REDUCTION IN RWY INCURSION AT SJC. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALS THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED A SIGN NEAR THE RUNUP AREA ADVISES PLTS TO CONTACT GND CTL WHEN READY FOR TKOF, BUT IS NOT ALWAYS SEEN BY PLTS. THIS ANALYST DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE RPTR THAT SJC HAS A NONSTANDARD PROC AND SHOULD USE THE SAME PROC THAT OTHER ARPTS ARE USING. THE RUN-UP AREA IS ACROSS AN ACTIVE TXWY. THE RPTR EXPLAINED HIS 'SJC HAS MORE THAN ITS SHARE OF RWY INCURSIONS' REFERS TO HOLD LINE XINGS. THIS COMMENT COULD BE DEBATED SINCE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RUNUP AREA PROC.

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.