A TAXIING DASSAULT FA20 IS GIVEN CONFUSING TAXI INSTRUCTIONS TO; '...HOLD SHORT OF 'SALT' RWY.' RPTR; PIC; HOLDS SHORT OF THE ACTIVE RWY; (RWYS 14/32) AND NOTES A C130 PERFORM A GO AROUND. THE FA20 WAS; OBVIOUSLY; IN THE LNDG AREA OF THE 'ASSAULT STRIP' AT YNG; OH.

Narrative

IT WAS DARK AND VISIBILITY WAS GOOD. THERE WAS LITTLE OR NO GND TFC. SOME MIL C130'S WERE DOING TOUCH AND GOES ON WHAT I 'ASSUMED' WAS RWY 14/32 (THE ACTIVE ACCORDING TO ATIS). OUR TAXI INSTRUCTIONS WERE TO EXIT THE RAMP ON TXWY C AND HOLD SHORT OF WHAT I THOUGHT HE SAID WAS 'THE SALT RWY.' AS I WAS TAXIING SLOWLY NORTHEASTERLY ON TXWY C I'M LOOKING FOR THE 'SALT RWY.' I HAD NO IDEA WHAT GND WAS TALKING ABOUT AND THE ONLY RWYS SHOWN ON MY ARPT DIAGRAM WERE RWYS 14/32; 05/23 AND 01/19. EVEN AFTER AT LEAST TWO REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION I WAS STILL UNCERTAIN. AS I APPROACHED RWYS 14/32 I STOPPED WELL SHORT IN AN EFFORT TO MAINTAIN EXTRA CAUTION AND VIGILANCE; AS A RESULT MY TAIL WAS HANGING OVER INTO THE UNMARKED TXWY THAT I HAD JUST CROSSED AND APPEARED TO BE CLR OF TAXI TFC. GND AND TWR WERE COMBINED ON ONE FREQ. AS I CAME TO A STOP I HEARD TWR TELL SOMEONE TO 'GO AROUND.' AS I LOOKED TO MY R I COULD SEE A C130 GO MISSED FROM WHAT APPEARED TO BE EITHER A HUGE OVERSHOOT OR AN ATTEMPTED LNDG ON THE TXWY I HAD JUST CROSSED AND EVEN YET ENCROACHED. NEEDLESS TO SAY I WAS CONFUSED AND FEELING SOMEHOW RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S GO AROUND. IT BECAME CLR THAT WHAT THEY WERE SAYING ALL ALONG WAS 'ASSAULT RWY' AND THAT THIS TERMINOLOGY SOMEHOW REFERRED TO THE UNMARKED 'TXWY' SHOWN ON MY ARPT DIAGRAM. I AM SUBMITTING THIS TO YOU BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE HAS THE 'JUICE' TO FIX THIS POTENTIALLY DISASTROUS OP. AS A RESULT OF MY COMPLAINTS; I THOUGHT THE NEW PLATES WOULD CLRLY IDENTIFY THIS 'RWY;' IT CLEARLY IS NOT. I ALSO THOUGHT THEY WOULD ADD SOME NEW SIGNAGE ON THE FIELD. AS OF JANUARY 2000 THEY HAD NOT. I FIND THIS COMPLETELY INEXCUSABLE; TO ALLOW ANYONE (MIL NOT EXCLUDED) TO USE AN UNMARKED TAXIWAY AS A RWY AND THEN TO USE NON-STANDARD VERBIAGE WHILE DOING IT. ADDITIONALLY; I AM CONTINUALLY OPPOSED TO ANY USE OF 'COMBINED' FREQS. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT A MAJORITY OF OUR PROBS ARE EITHER INITIATED OR PROMULGATED AS A RESULT OF THIS PRACTICE. THE CTLRS ARE JUST NOT ABLE TO HANDLE MULTIPLE FREQS AS EFFICIENTLY AS ONE WHEN THERE IS MORE THAN ONE ACFT IN THE AREA OF THEIR JURISDICTION. I BELIEVE THIS SIT IS JUST ANOTHER VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT FACT.