Narrative:

A P180 called me on ground control from the ramp for taxi out for an IFR departure. He informed me that he needed a run up. The P180 was given our confusing and non .65 taxi phraseology to the north run up area; which is not charted and not clearly marked on the field and not given an expected runway for departure as ordered by our flms and atm. I stated '...taxi to the north run up area via alpha;' and he read back the instructions correctly. He pulled into the ramp at A1 outside of the designated box to do his run up. When he was done with his run up; he taxied out of the box to runway 17L on his own and contacted the tower he was ready to go. I informed local control that he had not been given a runway assignment and the local control did not issue a runway. I made it known to management that an aircraft taxied out of the ramp to a runway without a clearance and was given the cold shoulder and nothing was done. We coordinated his release from D01 and he was eventually cleared for takeoff from runway 17L without a runway assignment as required by the .65. Recommendation: 1) the procedure is confusing to all itinerant aircraft.2) aircraft at the very least should be given an 'expect runway...' assignment.3) the ATIS used to inform aircraft to inform ground control when ready for departure for sequence to the runway. It is and has been gone from the ATIS since we have changed to this procedure. If the aircraft calls local control; they do not have a runway assignment.4) we should be allowed to use .65 phraseology to do our job to avoid the confusion we are causing to all itinerant aircraft. This stuff happens each and every day and management just shrugs it off.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APA Controller voiced concern regarding the locally mandated taxi phraseology that allegedly is not in compliance with FAA Orders.

Narrative: A P180 called me on Ground Control from the ramp for taxi out for an IFR departure. He informed me that he needed a run up. The P180 was given our confusing and non .65 taxi phraseology to the north run up area; which is not charted and not clearly marked on the field and not given an expected runway for departure as ordered by our FLMs and ATM. I stated '...Taxi to the north run up area via Alpha;' and he read back the instructions correctly. He pulled into the ramp at A1 outside of the designated box to do his run up. When he was done with his run up; he taxied out of the box to Runway 17L on his own and contacted the Tower he was ready to go. I informed Local Control that he had not been given a runway assignment and the Local Control did not issue a runway. I made it known to Management that an aircraft taxied out of the ramp to a runway without a clearance and was given the cold shoulder and nothing was done. We coordinated his release from D01 and he was eventually cleared for takeoff from Runway 17L without a runway assignment as required by the .65. Recommendation: 1) The procedure is confusing to all itinerant aircraft.2) Aircraft at the very least should be given an 'expect Runway...' assignment.3) The ATIS used to inform aircraft to inform Ground Control when ready for departure for sequence to the runway. It is and has been gone from the ATIS since we have changed to this procedure. If the aircraft calls Local Control; they do not have a runway assignment.4) We should be allowed to use .65 phraseology to do our job to avoid the confusion we are causing to all itinerant aircraft. This stuff happens each and every day and management just shrugs it off.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.