Narrative:

During taxi for takeoff we were told by ground controller to cross runway 24R en route to runway 24L and hold short of runway 24L at the D7 sign. We were handed off to tower which was selected by first officer to 118.7. The controller on that frequency told us to stop and contact tower on 118.35. The controller on that frequency was busy telling arriving traffic that we had encroached on the protected approach area and making sure they had the runway visually. I told the tower that we were short of the D7 sign as instructed and he said that the area is confusing and he thought there was another sign earlier that we were to hold short of. I did not see one and in any event there is little room between the 2 runways, had we stopped earlier we would still have been partially on runway 24R. He said they had worked out the problem with the arriving traffic and did not seem too concerned. As nearly as I can tell there are no markings on taxiway D7 showing an ILS hold short area, which there should be if they intend to operate instrument approachs and lndgs from the same runway. Use of a taxiway sign as a hold short point is unacceptable if there are more than one identical sign and no one tells us this is their intent. We complied with taxi instructions as best as we were able with limited information. I think the first officer may have selected the wrong tower frequency initially which aggravated the situation. At no time was there a runway incursion.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: F100 PIC RPT ON POOR OR INADEQUATE SIGNAGE AND TXWY MARKINGS THAT ONLY ADDED TO THE CONFUSION EXPERIENCED WITH TAXI INSTRUCTIONS AS ISSUED BY THE GND CTLR AT CYYZ, ONT.

Narrative: DURING TAXI FOR TKOF WE WERE TOLD BY GND CTLR TO CROSS RWY 24R ENRTE TO RWY 24L AND HOLD SHORT OF RWY 24L AT THE D7 SIGN. WE WERE HANDED OFF TO TWR WHICH WAS SELECTED BY FO TO 118.7. THE CTLR ON THAT FREQ TOLD US TO STOP AND CONTACT TWR ON 118.35. THE CTLR ON THAT FREQ WAS BUSY TELLING ARRIVING TFC THAT WE HAD ENCROACHED ON THE PROTECTED APCH AREA AND MAKING SURE THEY HAD THE RWY VISUALLY. I TOLD THE TWR THAT WE WERE SHORT OF THE D7 SIGN AS INSTRUCTED AND HE SAID THAT THE AREA IS CONFUSING AND HE THOUGHT THERE WAS ANOTHER SIGN EARLIER THAT WE WERE TO HOLD SHORT OF. I DID NOT SEE ONE AND IN ANY EVENT THERE IS LITTLE ROOM BTWN THE 2 RWYS, HAD WE STOPPED EARLIER WE WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN PARTIALLY ON RWY 24R. HE SAID THEY HAD WORKED OUT THE PROB WITH THE ARRIVING TFC AND DID NOT SEEM TOO CONCERNED. AS NEARLY AS I CAN TELL THERE ARE NO MARKINGS ON TXWY D7 SHOWING AN ILS HOLD SHORT AREA, WHICH THERE SHOULD BE IF THEY INTEND TO OPERATE INST APCHS AND LNDGS FROM THE SAME RWY. USE OF A TXWY SIGN AS A HOLD SHORT POINT IS UNACCEPTABLE IF THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE IDENTICAL SIGN AND NO ONE TELLS US THIS IS THEIR INTENT. WE COMPLIED WITH TAXI INSTRUCTIONS AS BEST AS WE WERE ABLE WITH LIMITED INFO. I THINK THE FO MAY HAVE SELECTED THE WRONG TWR FREQ INITIALLY WHICH AGGRAVATED THE SIT. AT NO TIME WAS THERE A RWY INCURSION.

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.