A RWY INCURSION DURING A NIGHT OP WHEN A B747 CARGO FLT TAXIES ONTO RWY 5L WHEN GIVEN CLRNC TO BACK TAXI ON RWY 5R AT RCTP; FO.

Narrative

THERE WAS A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF DIFFICULTY WITH THE TAXI CLRNC FROM THE CARGO FACILITIES TO THE ACTIVE RWY FOR DEP. AFTER THE INITIAL CLRNC; TPE GND CTL ISSUED A REVISED CLRNC IN BROKEN ENGLISH TO BACK TAXI ON RWY 5R TO AVOID CONSTRUCTION. I DIDN'T TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE XMISSION; SO I ASKED THE FO IF HE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS SAID. HE INDICATED THAT HE DID; AND TOLD ME TO MAKE A R TURN TO INTERCEPT RWY 5 FOR BACK TAXI. GND CTL THEN ADVISED US THAT WE HAD TURNED WRONG DIRECTION AND HAD ENTERED THE WRONG RWY 5. ACCORDING TO THE CHARTS; THERE IS ONLY 1 RWY 5 AT THE TPE ARPT. THERE IS NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER OF A CLOSED RWY 5R. WHAT THEY ARE REFING AS RWY 5R SIMPLY SHOWS AS A TXWY ON THE ARPT DIAGRAM. IN THE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND XMISSION; WE WERE TOLD TO BACK TAXI ON RWY 5; SO WE TURNED TO INTERCEPT AND BACK TAXI ON THE ONLY RWY 5 SHOWING ON THE CHARTS. TPE GND CTL IS ISSUING TAXI CLRNCS BASED ON AND REFING A CLOSED RWY THAT DOES NOT EXIST ON ANY TAXI OR ARPT CHART. UNFORTUNATELY; THE FO BECAME AGITATED WITH THE GND CTLR. HE MAINTAINED A PROFESSIONAL PROFILE; BUT HIS TONE AND ATTITUDE WAS ONE OF BEING QUITE TENSE. THERE WAS ADDITIONAL CONTROVERSY OVER ANOTHER CLRNC THE FO DIDN'T THINK WAS PHRASED CORRECTLY EITHER; ALTHOUGH NO TRANSGRESSIONS OCCURRED AT THAT POINT. I CONSIDER HIM AN EXCELLENT FO AND PLT; BUT HE CLRLY BECAME FRUSTRATED WITH TPE DURING THIS OCCURRENCE.