Narrative:

We taxied to runway 18R (the outer) in mco to depart. In doing so, we crossed runway 18L which was carrying a large 'X.' 3 hours later, again in mco, the ATIS reported runway 18L for departures and then runway 18L was put into the FMS. At taxiway H3, the ground controller instructed us to taxi taxiway G, taxiway J, taxiway C to runway 18R. After an incorrect taxiway readback, ground retracted taxiway G, taxiway J, taxiway C. We read it back correctly and proceeded to taxi. Approaching taxiway B1 on taxiway C, we saw a B757 on taxiway R1 taxiing to runway 18R and another aircraft which had just departed off of runway 18R. This appeared all normal. As we continued to taxi onto taxiway R1 toward runway 18R, we approached runway 18L and noticed a beech 1900 on final. Since it is sometimes difficult to tell if an aircraft is on 1 of 2 close parallel runways, airports usually land on the outer runways, and most importantly, we were not given a 'hold short' instruction. We proceeded to the hold short line assuming the 1900 aircraft was landing on runway 18R. With the nosewheel several ft beyond the hold short line, we realized that the 1900 aircraft was now on short final for runway 18L. We immediately applied the brakes and stopped well away from the runway edge, and well away from the landing aircraft. Not even close. Just as we were about to call tower to question our intended runway, tower called us and told us to cross runway 18L and taxi into position runway 18R. We asked for confirmation that he wanted us to take position on runway 18R and he confirmed it. We were then cleared for takeoff and the flight continued uneventfully. Somewhere in the chain of events, there was a miscom. Possible causes include: failure to issue hold short instructions, failure between tower and ground that an aircraft was landing on the inner when multiple aircraft had departed off of the outer, or possibly the flight crew assuming to depart off of runway 18R instead of listening to the ground controller carefully when taxiway letters were distracting them. In addition, the crew was on day #4, when extra vigilance is required. Besides departure runway confusion and 1/2 the crew and/or controllers, this could have been avoided if the crew would have not assumed the 1900 aircraft was landing on the outer. Instead when any doubt existed where the beech was landing, the crew should not have continued and clarification should have been requested.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CONFUSION BTWN ATIS, GND CTL CLRNC AND APPARENT RWY IN USE AT MCO CAUSES CL65 CREW TO CROSS HOLD SHORT LINE OF RWY 18L AT TXWY C. STOPPED IN TIME TO ALLOW B190 TO LAND WITHOUT INCIDENT.

Narrative: WE TAXIED TO RWY 18R (THE OUTER) IN MCO TO DEPART. IN DOING SO, WE CROSSED RWY 18L WHICH WAS CARRYING A LARGE 'X.' 3 HRS LATER, AGAIN IN MCO, THE ATIS RPTED RWY 18L FOR DEPS AND THEN RWY 18L WAS PUT INTO THE FMS. AT TXWY H3, THE GND CTLR INSTRUCTED US TO TAXI TXWY G, TXWY J, TXWY C TO RWY 18R. AFTER AN INCORRECT TXWY READBACK, GND RETRACTED TXWY G, TXWY J, TXWY C. WE READ IT BACK CORRECTLY AND PROCEEDED TO TAXI. APCHING TXWY B1 ON TXWY C, WE SAW A B757 ON TXWY R1 TAXIING TO RWY 18R AND ANOTHER ACFT WHICH HAD JUST DEPARTED OFF OF RWY 18R. THIS APPEARED ALL NORMAL. AS WE CONTINUED TO TAXI ONTO TXWY R1 TOWARD RWY 18R, WE APCHED RWY 18L AND NOTICED A BEECH 1900 ON FINAL. SINCE IT IS SOMETIMES DIFFICULT TO TELL IF AN ACFT IS ON 1 OF 2 CLOSE PARALLEL RWYS, ARPTS USUALLY LAND ON THE OUTER RWYS, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE WERE NOT GIVEN A 'HOLD SHORT' INSTRUCTION. WE PROCEEDED TO THE HOLD SHORT LINE ASSUMING THE 1900 ACFT WAS LNDG ON RWY 18R. WITH THE NOSEWHEEL SEVERAL FT BEYOND THE HOLD SHORT LINE, WE REALIZED THAT THE 1900 ACFT WAS NOW ON SHORT FINAL FOR RWY 18L. WE IMMEDIATELY APPLIED THE BRAKES AND STOPPED WELL AWAY FROM THE RWY EDGE, AND WELL AWAY FROM THE LNDG ACFT. NOT EVEN CLOSE. JUST AS WE WERE ABOUT TO CALL TWR TO QUESTION OUR INTENDED RWY, TWR CALLED US AND TOLD US TO CROSS RWY 18L AND TAXI INTO POS RWY 18R. WE ASKED FOR CONFIRMATION THAT HE WANTED US TO TAKE POS ON RWY 18R AND HE CONFIRMED IT. WE WERE THEN CLRED FOR TKOF AND THE FLT CONTINUED UNEVENTFULLY. SOMEWHERE IN THE CHAIN OF EVENTS, THERE WAS A MISCOM. POSSIBLE CAUSES INCLUDE: FAILURE TO ISSUE HOLD SHORT INSTRUCTIONS, FAILURE BTWN TWR AND GND THAT AN ACFT WAS LNDG ON THE INNER WHEN MULTIPLE ACFT HAD DEPARTED OFF OF THE OUTER, OR POSSIBLY THE FLT CREW ASSUMING TO DEPART OFF OF RWY 18R INSTEAD OF LISTENING TO THE GND CTLR CAREFULLY WHEN TXWY LETTERS WERE DISTRACTING THEM. IN ADDITION, THE CREW WAS ON DAY #4, WHEN EXTRA VIGILANCE IS REQUIRED. BESIDES DEP RWY CONFUSION AND 1/2 THE CREW AND/OR CTLRS, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF THE CREW WOULD HAVE NOT ASSUMED THE 1900 ACFT WAS LNDG ON THE OUTER. INSTEAD WHEN ANY DOUBT EXISTED WHERE THE BEECH WAS LNDG, THE CREW SHOULD NOT HAVE CONTINUED AND CLARIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN REQUESTED.

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.