Narrative:

Called for taxi at san with information. Received clearance 'taxi runway 27 follow 2ND air carrier Y.' we then received amended taxi clearance 'aircraft X now follow air carrier Z out of taxiway B6,' which we acknowledged. As we approached taxiway B6, an air carrier Z jet exited the runway at high speed and captain XXXX slowed and maneuvered away from the air carrier Z jet. After the fact we determined that the controller wanted us to give way to an aircraft that had not even landed yet. We inferred that she was referring to an outbound aircraft. Additionally, as we proceeded, we were told that we did not give way to air carrier Y pushing off the gate. We followed the 2ND air carrier Y jet that we saw, as per her clearance. We concluded, after the fact, that she wanted us to hold for an air carrier Y jet that had not yet pushed. We saw 2 air carrier Y jets, one X color and one Y color taxiing already. We followed them so, it appears that we were to understand to wait for an aircraft that was still airborne and another that had not begun to taxi. Both of us did not have any reason to question the clearance and feel that we complied with the clearance as we understood it. The controller made a lot of assumptions, as did we. I guess next time I will have to think outside the box and look for other than the obvious when interpreting ATC instructions. In this instance, I feel that if the controller would have pointed out that the aircraft she was referring to was about to touch down, and the second aircraft was about to start a pushback, the confusion would never have occurred.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD90 DEPARTING SNA RECEIVES CONFUSING TAXI INSTRUCTIONS FROM ATC.

Narrative: CALLED FOR TAXI AT SAN WITH INFO. RECEIVED CLRNC 'TAXI RWY 27 FOLLOW 2ND ACR Y.' WE THEN RECEIVED AMENDED TAXI CLRNC 'ACFT X NOW FOLLOW ACR Z OUT OF TXWY B6,' WHICH WE ACKNOWLEDGED. AS WE APCHED TXWY B6, AN ACR Z JET EXITED THE RWY AT HIGH SPD AND CAPT XXXX SLOWED AND MANEUVERED AWAY FROM THE ACR Z JET. AFTER THE FACT WE DETERMINED THAT THE CTLR WANTED US TO GIVE WAY TO AN ACFT THAT HAD NOT EVEN LANDED YET. WE INFERRED THAT SHE WAS REFERRING TO AN OUTBOUND ACFT. ADDITIONALLY, AS WE PROCEEDED, WE WERE TOLD THAT WE DID NOT GIVE WAY TO ACR Y PUSHING OFF THE GATE. WE FOLLOWED THE 2ND ACR Y JET THAT WE SAW, AS PER HER CLRNC. WE CONCLUDED, AFTER THE FACT, THAT SHE WANTED US TO HOLD FOR AN ACR Y JET THAT HAD NOT YET PUSHED. WE SAW 2 ACR Y JETS, ONE X COLOR AND ONE Y COLOR TAXIING ALREADY. WE FOLLOWED THEM SO, IT APPEARS THAT WE WERE TO UNDERSTAND TO WAIT FOR AN ACFT THAT WAS STILL AIRBORNE AND ANOTHER THAT HAD NOT BEGUN TO TAXI. BOTH OF US DID NOT HAVE ANY REASON TO QUESTION THE CLRNC AND FEEL THAT WE COMPLIED WITH THE CLRNC AS WE UNDERSTOOD IT. THE CTLR MADE A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS, AS DID WE. I GUESS NEXT TIME I WILL HAVE TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX AND LOOK FOR OTHER THAN THE OBVIOUS WHEN INTERPRETING ATC INSTRUCTIONS. IN THIS INSTANCE, I FEEL THAT IF THE CTLR WOULD HAVE POINTED OUT THAT THE ACFT SHE WAS REFERRING TO WAS ABOUT TO TOUCH DOWN, AND THE SECOND ACFT WAS ABOUT TO START A PUSHBACK, THE CONFUSION WOULD NEVER HAVE OCCURRED.

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.