Air carrier flight crew reported the lack of clear taxiway lines led a taxiway incursion at CLT.
Synopsis
Air carrier flight crew reported the lack of clear taxiway lines led a taxiway incursion at CLT.
Narrative
We pushed back from [Gate] XX. After engines started; we were cleared to Spot 24C. We noticed an area of construction in front of us and a scrubbed out yellow line toward the G taxiway. I commented that we cannot taxi there due to the scrubbed line and proximity to the terminal and construction. R taxiway was wide open with no activity around it and I asked my FO to request that taxiway. I believed he requested that taxiway and I believed we were cleared R to J. Apparently we were actually cleared to G taxiway. I taxied out R and was told to stop by the Ground Controller. We were inspected by the city and they concluded there were no safety issues and we were cleared to taxi to Runway 36C and continued to our destination without further incident.Cause: I was told CLT has 17 construction areas. CLT has a habit of just scrubbing yellow lines. We need those yellow lines to ensure wing and tail clearance. I believe if we would have taxied the way the controller cleared us it would have created an unacceptable risk of a wing or tail contact with other aircraft at [the] terminal and/or near the construction area. CLT is literally the worst airport I have operated at IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!!!!! CLT needs an entire review of their operations and we need taxiway lines that we can rely on for wing tip clearance. In addition; we need an ATIS that identifies new and existing areas under construction emphasizing closures with accurate newly labeled spots" that actually exist on our Jeppesen charts. In the future; I will not taxi without guaranteed wing and tail clearance. Widebody aircraft should either be towed to an acceptable taxiway with yellow lines; or a follow me truck with wing walkers."
Second reporter narrative
Was cleared to Spot 24C by Ramp Controller after pushing off of Gate XX. Captain began taxiing towards where he thought 24C was located and then questioned how to proceed in the absence of the taxi line. Ground Controller then issued taxi instruction to proceed via Golf. There was a second communication with the Ground Controller that I couldn't hear; but both pilots in the seat seemed comfortable with how to proceed. Captain saw the construction and absence of the taxi line and thought Taxiway Romeo was Taxiway Golf since Romeo had a visible taxi line and appeared unimpacted by the construction. He turned the aircraft onto Romeo and was directed to hold position by Ground. We were then advised by Ground that we had turned onto the wrong taxiway and that the area would have to be inspected prior to and during our taxi out. City of Charlotte vehicle appeared and inspected the process. They advised that no damage to the construction site had occurred from our engine blast. We continued our taxi to the center runway and the flight continued without further incident. Cause: I'm new to the aircraft and especially new to role as the Relief Pilot. Expectation bias played a role as expectations were that 24C was within the construction area as well as the historical expectation that Romeo was a useable taxiway and lacked any markings otherwise; lack of taxi lines and spot marking; ATC comms were mildly hostile which may have given the FO a slight pause before questioning further; several distractions forced me to go heads down in the moment and miss that the Captain had made the wrong turn.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.