Narrative:

Transoceanic flight; prior to landing; relief pilot provided written ATIS. He wrote that taxiway M1 was closed. After landing; ground cleared us to taxi via E3 to M7 to M10 to hold short of runway 7L. As we approached M10; we saw a cone barricade across the taxiway. I advised ground we would be unable to access M10; and that we would need someone to remove the cones. Ground cleared us to transition over to taxiway north; which is about 300-400 ft parallel to taxiway M. The area between the txwys are paved. I advised ground we were unable to cross the double yellow lines. Ground dispatched an airport vehicle to assist us. We expected the vehicle driver to remove the cones so we could resume our taxi. Instead; the vehicle turned on its 'follow-me' lights and started to transition to taxiway north. Ground called us and directed us to 'follow the follow-me.' I asked ground to confirm the pavement on the other side of the double yellow line was stressed for our aircraft. Ground said we must cross the double yellow line and 'follow the follow-me.' the three of us discussed the situation. We talked about the possibility that if the area on the other side of the double yellow line was not usable; it would have chevrons or stripes in addition to the double yellow line. There were no chevrons or stripes in this case. A second airport vehicle arrived; which we assumed was a supervisor. Ground again directed to 'follow the follow-me.' I was 'head-down' looking for further information in a manual when the captain began to taxi behind the follow-me. While I wish he would have asked if we were all comfortable with this move; I should have specifically stated I did not know if this was ok. In any case; we taxied to taxiway north and to the gate without further concern. A postflt inspection by the relief pilot showed all was ok. A couple of days later; while at home; I reviewed the aim. I found information concerning runway shoulder stripes as well as taxiway edge stripes. I also found this statement concerning taxiway edge stripes: 'although shoulders may have the appearance of full strength pavement they are not intended for use by aircraft; and may be unable to support an aircraft. Usually the taxiway edge marking will define this area. Where conditions exist such as islands or taxiway curves that may cause confusion as to which side of the edge stripe is for use by aircraft; taxiway shoulder markings may be used to indicate the pavement is unusable.' the taxiway we looked at did not have stripes or chevrons; but did have a double yellow line. We followed the directives of ground control after 2 airport vehicles arrived to assess the situation and guide us to a new taxi route. After reviewing the aim; I feel we operated outside of its guidance. While we were in a foreign country; which may have its own rules; as a united states pilot of a united states aircraft I think I need to operate within my country's guidelines. I would have preferred to have had more time to think through the situation before the captain began to taxi. However; I should have specifically stated I was not yet comfortable and I wanted more time to analyze the situation. I would have advised ground that either the cones had to be removed; or we would need to be pushed back by ground crew to a taxiway behind us. That brings up the question of why the cones were not placed at the intersection with the last taxiway that we could have possibly turned off at. The cones should have been placed at the intersection of taxiway E3 and M7.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B767 FLT CREW HAS A TXWY EXCURSION AT LEBL WHILE FOLLOWING A 'FOLLOW-ME' VEHICLE PER GND CTL INSTRUCTIONS.

Narrative: TRANSOCEANIC FLT; PRIOR TO LNDG; RELIEF PLT PROVIDED WRITTEN ATIS. HE WROTE THAT TXWY M1 WAS CLOSED. AFTER LNDG; GND CLRED US TO TAXI VIA E3 TO M7 TO M10 TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 7L. AS WE APCHED M10; WE SAW A CONE BARRICADE ACROSS THE TXWY. I ADVISED GND WE WOULD BE UNABLE TO ACCESS M10; AND THAT WE WOULD NEED SOMEONE TO REMOVE THE CONES. GND CLRED US TO TRANSITION OVER TO TXWY N; WHICH IS ABOUT 300-400 FT PARALLEL TO TXWY M. THE AREA BTWN THE TXWYS ARE PAVED. I ADVISED GND WE WERE UNABLE TO CROSS THE DOUBLE YELLOW LINES. GND DISPATCHED AN ARPT VEHICLE TO ASSIST US. WE EXPECTED THE VEHICLE DRIVER TO REMOVE THE CONES SO WE COULD RESUME OUR TAXI. INSTEAD; THE VEHICLE TURNED ON ITS 'FOLLOW-ME' LIGHTS AND STARTED TO TRANSITION TO TXWY N. GND CALLED US AND DIRECTED US TO 'FOLLOW THE FOLLOW-ME.' I ASKED GND TO CONFIRM THE PAVEMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DOUBLE YELLOW LINE WAS STRESSED FOR OUR ACFT. GND SAID WE MUST CROSS THE DOUBLE YELLOW LINE AND 'FOLLOW THE FOLLOW-ME.' THE THREE OF US DISCUSSED THE SITUATION. WE TALKED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT IF THE AREA ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DOUBLE YELLOW LINE WAS NOT USABLE; IT WOULD HAVE CHEVRONS OR STRIPES IN ADDITION TO THE DOUBLE YELLOW LINE. THERE WERE NO CHEVRONS OR STRIPES IN THIS CASE. A SECOND ARPT VEHICLE ARRIVED; WHICH WE ASSUMED WAS A SUPVR. GND AGAIN DIRECTED TO 'FOLLOW THE FOLLOW-ME.' I WAS 'HEAD-DOWN' LOOKING FOR FURTHER INFO IN A MANUAL WHEN THE CAPT BEGAN TO TAXI BEHIND THE FOLLOW-ME. WHILE I WISH HE WOULD HAVE ASKED IF WE WERE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS MOVE; I SHOULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY STATED I DID NOT KNOW IF THIS WAS OK. IN ANY CASE; WE TAXIED TO TXWY N AND TO THE GATE WITHOUT FURTHER CONCERN. A POSTFLT INSPECTION BY THE RELIEF PLT SHOWED ALL WAS OK. A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER; WHILE AT HOME; I REVIEWED THE AIM. I FOUND INFO CONCERNING RWY SHOULDER STRIPES AS WELL AS TXWY EDGE STRIPES. I ALSO FOUND THIS STATEMENT CONCERNING TXWY EDGE STRIPES: 'ALTHOUGH SHOULDERS MAY HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF FULL STRENGTH PAVEMENT THEY ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY ACFT; AND MAY BE UNABLE TO SUPPORT AN ACFT. USUALLY THE TXWY EDGE MARKING WILL DEFINE THIS AREA. WHERE CONDITIONS EXIST SUCH AS ISLANDS OR TXWY CURVES THAT MAY CAUSE CONFUSION AS TO WHICH SIDE OF THE EDGE STRIPE IS FOR USE BY ACFT; TXWY SHOULDER MARKINGS MAY BE USED TO INDICATE THE PAVEMENT IS UNUSABLE.' THE TXWY WE LOOKED AT DID NOT HAVE STRIPES OR CHEVRONS; BUT DID HAVE A DOUBLE YELLOW LINE. WE FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIVES OF GND CTL AFTER 2 ARPT VEHICLES ARRIVED TO ASSESS THE SITUATION AND GUIDE US TO A NEW TAXI RTE. AFTER REVIEWING THE AIM; I FEEL WE OPERATED OUTSIDE OF ITS GUIDANCE. WHILE WE WERE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY; WHICH MAY HAVE ITS OWN RULES; AS A UNITED STATES PLT OF A UNITED STATES ACFT I THINK I NEED TO OPERATE WITHIN MY COUNTRY'S GUIDELINES. I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO HAVE HAD MORE TIME TO THINK THROUGH THE SITUATION BEFORE THE CAPT BEGAN TO TAXI. HOWEVER; I SHOULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY STATED I WAS NOT YET COMFORTABLE AND I WANTED MORE TIME TO ANALYZE THE SITUATION. I WOULD HAVE ADVISED GND THAT EITHER THE CONES HAD TO BE REMOVED; OR WE WOULD NEED TO BE PUSHED BACK BY GND CREW TO A TXWY BEHIND US. THAT BRINGS UP THE QUESTION OF WHY THE CONES WERE NOT PLACED AT THE INTXN WITH THE LAST TXWY THAT WE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY TURNED OFF AT. THE CONES SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED AT THE INTXN OF TXWY E3 AND M7.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.