RUNUP AREA FOR RWY 29 AT SJC IS LOCATED ACROSS TXWY V AND THE TWR REQUIRES ACFT TO CONTACT GND CTL AFTER RUNUP IS COMPLETE FOR CLRNC TO THE RWY.

Narrative

SJC ATCT HAS AN UNSAFE PROC FOR GETTING ACFT FROM THE RWY 29 RUNUP AREA TO RWY 29 FOR TKOF. THE SJC ARPT REQUIRES PLTS IN THE RWY 29 RUNUP AREA TO CALL GND CTL FOR PERMISSION TO TAXI ACROSS TXWY V TO RWY 29 FOR TKOF. THIS IS NONSTANDARD FOR MOST ARPTS. MOST ARPTS HAVE ACFT IN THE RUNUP AREA CONTACT LCL CTL FOR TKOF CLRNC FROM THE RUNUP AREA. AT MOST ARPTS THE PLTS NEED TO MOVE ON A TXWY TO GET ONTO THE ACTIVE RWY; BUT THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO CONTACT GND CTL TO DO SO. THEREFORE; SJC'S PROC IS NONSTANDARD. THIS HAS CAUSED NUMEROUS PLTDEVS TO BE FILED AGAINST PLTS AND; THEREFORE; HAS RESULTED IN SEVERAL UNSAFE SITS DEVELOPING. IT WOULD BE SAFER IF PLTS WERE INSTRUCTED BY ATC VOICE AND ARPT SIGNS TO CONTACT THE LCL CTLR FROM THE RWY 29 RUNUP AREA FOR TKOF CLRNC. THE LCL CTLR COULD VISUALLY DETERMINE THAT TXWY V WAS CLR BEFORE CLRING THE ACFT ONTO RWY 29. THIS PROC WOULD BE STANDARD; IE; WHAT PLTS ARE USED TO OR EXPECTING. IT WOULD RESULT IN FEWER PLTDEVS AND FEWER UNSAFE SITS ON RWY 29. SJC HAS HAD MORE THAN ITS SHARE OF RWY INCURSIONS. I BELIEVE THIS CHANGE WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO A REDUCTION IN RWY INCURSION AT SJC. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALS THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED A SIGN NEAR THE RUNUP AREA ADVISES PLTS TO CONTACT GND CTL WHEN READY FOR TKOF; BUT IS NOT ALWAYS SEEN BY PLTS. THIS ANALYST DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE RPTR THAT SJC HAS A NONSTANDARD PROC AND SHOULD USE THE SAME PROC THAT OTHER ARPTS ARE USING. THE RUN-UP AREA IS ACROSS AN ACTIVE TXWY. THE RPTR EXPLAINED HIS 'SJC HAS MORE THAN ITS SHARE OF RWY INCURSIONS' REFERS TO HOLD LINE XINGS. THIS COMMENT COULD BE DEBATED SINCE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RUNUP AREA PROC.