Air carrier flight crew reported inadvertently pushing on to an active taxiway without clearance. One reporter stated that the METAR/ATIS at FAT differed substantially from the Jeppesen stated weather and the TAF and felt this may have contributed.
Synopsis
Air carrier flight crew reported inadvertently pushing on to an active taxiway without clearance. One reporter stated that the METAR/ATIS at FAT differed substantially from the Jeppesen stated weather and the TAF and felt this may have contributed.
Narrative
We were on gate XX and pushed onto Taxiway A without clearance. There were no notes in the company pages regarding calling ATC for push. We called and I said we were on gate XY; not XX because the company pages showed us on gate XY; not XX. hours prior; when we arrived to Fresno; we were given gate XX. This was shown on the company pages; and this was the same gate we were leaving out of. However; it was a long layover; so I'd forgotten about the gate numbers since the company pages showed gate XY and not XX. We were departing before sunrise and visibility was very low (due to fog); so we called the tower frequency (since clearance; ground and tower were all combined on the same freq per the ATIS) to request push from gate XY. Again; company pages said gate XY and when we entered the jet bridge; it showed gate XY; so I said we were at gate XY. The controller said push our discretion and that the ramp was uncontrolled. So; we pushed and then the controller called and we were on taxiway A without a clearance. He said there was a plane he wanted to taxi on A. The fog kept him from seeing the plane (and it was stilll night); but he saw our light. He said not to worry about it; but for future reference; request push for XX. Gate XY is in uncontrolled. XX is not. I can't find anything in the company pages or the Jepps that would indicate that XX pushes onto taxiway A; nor can I find anything that would have shown we were on XX. Cause: 1.Low Visibility: Night and heavy fog.2.ATIS not being updated. When we called to push; I asked for a new ATIS because the current one was nearly 80 minutes old. The controller said there'd be one shortly and that he's working the tower alone.3.Confusion with how low the visibility was. The metar per Jepps stated ¼ mile vis; the ATIS per the radio stated 1/8 mile vis. There seems to be an issue with the METAR/ATIS at this field. On our inbound leg; the TAF showed very low vis; while the METAR stated 3SM and 1000 ceiling. While the time stamp on the Jepps METAR would update; the Ceiling and the vis remained the same. The actual approach had us enter the tops at 1000 MSL (roughly 700 AGL) and break out around the Auto 100 callout when the CA called approach lights in sight. 4.No guidance on the company pages that gates XX requires clearance from ATC while gate XY does not.5.Many airports have signs to call Ground for push from specific gates. 6.I do not recall any sign inside the terminal that says XXRecommend a note be added to the company pages regarding Gate XX to say 'contact ground controller for push from this gate as they will push you onto Taxiway A;' or 'Contact ground control and request push onto A.'
Second reporter narrative
The crew reported to the aircraft with low visibility conditions that varied from 800 RVR to 1600 RVR during preflight and taxi. The schedule and company pages designated the departure gate as XY; not XX. hours prior the same crew arrived at FAT to the same gate during low visibility; night conditions. This arrival and departure were the crew's first ever to FAT. A key purpose of this report is to ensure crews and airport operations personnel going forward clearly understand that the designation of the gate must accurately reflect how it is configured - XY verses XX. When pushed from XY the aircraft does not infringe on a taxiway; however; XX does infringe on Taxiway A.When our crew called ground for push; the controller noted that he was the only one on duty and stated; Cleared to push" with no specific instructions. Since the gate was not configured as scheduled as XY; but instead; XX; Aircraft X was pushed onto Taxiway A. No issues occurred; but given the dark; low visibility conditions; this was not good and is reason to prevent such from reoccurring by adding a note in the Company pages. Furthermore; local FAT operations personnel did not seem to know the subtle difference of how this gate being configured as XY verses XX matters with regard to taxiways. Shortly after the push crew disconnected and just before the flight crew requested taxi; a ground controller who mentioned he was just coming on duty queried our position and we told him that we were on Taxiway A and would be ready to taxi soon. This ensured other aircraft knew we were on Taxiway A. Subsequently we requested taxi and departed and completed the flight as scheduled. Cause: Gate XY was not configured correctly as noted in the company pages and displayed inside the terminal and was actually positioned as XX. Given the dark; low visibility conditions coupled with the aircrew having never departed from FAT along with no visible signage; no company specific notes; or verbal heads-up from Operations personnel; few clues were available to differentiate that XY was actually XX. Suggestions: Add a note to the Company Departure Page clarifying that XX pushes onto a Taxiway and ascertain which configuration the gate is actually in before calling for push2) Company personnel at FAT need direction to accurately configure Gate XY to match the company pages. If the XX configuration is needed; then accurately label it as such and reflect this in the company pages. 3) ATC Ground could provide an additional barrier by giving push clearances that address whether or not a taxiway will be involved in the pushback."
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.