MLG ACR FLC ATTEMPT; BUT DO NOT CLARIFY WITH TWR LCL CTLR; IF TKOF CLRNC IS FOR THEM; AND DEPART. PIC ACKNOWLEDGES THERE WAS A NEED FOR CONFIRMATION; BUT APPLIED TKOF PWR ANYWAY. FLC CONCERNED WITH TWR FREQ CONGESTION; AND CHALLENGE THE NEED FOR ALL THE TFC COORD EXCHANGE REQUIRED BY LCL CTLR.

Narrative

AFTER OUR FLT WAS CLRED INTO POS TO HOLD RWY 1L; THE CTLR ISSUED A TKOF CLRNC FOR ACFT #1 ON RWY 1L. THE FO CALLED THE CTLR; ASKING FOR VERIFICATION THAT ACFT #1 WAS CLRED FOR TKOF RWY 1L. THE CTLR RESPONDED 'CLRED FOR IMMEDIATE TKOF.' OBSERVING THAT WE WERE THE ONLY ACFT IN POS FOR TKOF; WE CONCLUDED THAT A FREQ BLOCK HAD COVERED THE FIRST PART OF THE CTLR'S TKOF CLRNC. AFTER STARTING OUR TKOF ROLL; THE TWR FREQ WAS AGAIN BLOCKED BY SIMULTANEOUS XMISSIONS. AFTER WHICH THE TWR CTLR STATED; 'ACFT #1; DISREGARD; CONTINUE YOUR TKOF.' THE CTLR'S LAST REMARK INDUCED DOUBT AS TO WHETHER A PROPER TKOF CLRNC HAD BEEN ISSUED IN THE FIRST PLACE; AND AS TO THE NATURE OF THIS XMISSION DURING OUR TKOF ROLL. OBVIOUSLY; THE BETTER COURSE OF ACTION ON OUR PART WOULD HAVE BEEN TO HOLD IN POS UNTIL WE HAD A CLR READOUT OF OUR CALL SIGN IN THE TKOF CLRNC; EVEN THOUGH ALL CIRCUMSTANCES POINTED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CLRNC WAS ISSUED TO US. I DON'T BELIEVE SAFETY WAS COMPROMISED IN THIS INSTANCE; BUT COMS BROKE DOWN BADLY. A LARGE PART OF THE PROB AT SFO SEEMS TO STEM FROM THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE LCL CTLR TO WORK THE ARR AS WELL AS DEP RWYS. THIS LEADS TO FREQUENT BLOCKAGE OF THE FREQ AS ACFT AND CTLR TRY TO GET A WORD IN. THE SIT IS MADE EVEN WORSE BY THE INCREASINGLY BURDENSOME REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CTLR TO ISSUE ADVISORY INFO TO HOLDING TFC REGARDING TFC ON FINAL AND VICE VERSA. MUCH OF THIS CHATTER SEEMS TO BE USELESS; AND JUST ADDS TO FREQ CONGESTION. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 412300: THE TWR DID NOT REPLY WITH OUR CALL SIGN WHEN WE ASKED HIM TO CONFIRM. HIGH TFC VOLUME IN SFO WAS A PRIME FACTOR IN THIS INCIDENT.