A319 FLC IS FRUSTRATED BY TXWY MARKINGS AND ATC RWY XING PROCS.

Narrative

NEED TO CLARIFY CONFUSION OF TXWY Y AT PHL. 'Y' DOES NOT INTERSECT OR JOIN RWY 9L-27R. 'Y' HAS NO HOLD SHORT MARKINGS; SIGNS OR LIGHTS TO REFERENCE RWY 27R. THE ARPT DIAGRAM SHOWS 'Y;' W OF RWY 27R. 'Y' ONLY HAS A 'RWY 9L APCH' SIGN FOR RWY 9L LNDGS. DEPENDING ON RWY; TKOF AND LNDG FLOW; ATC MAY OR MAY NOT REQUEST A HOLD SHORT OF RWY 9L; EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T INTERSECT. THEREFORE; THE ARPT DIAGRAM PAGE; REMARKS AND THE TXWY 'Y' MARKING SIGNS SHOULD BE UPGRADED TO THE NEW STANDARDS TO ELIMINATE TXWY Y PROCS THAT ATC ADMITS ARE VERY CONFUSING WHEN THE ARPT IS USING RWY 27L AND 27R FOR TKOF AND LNDGS. THIS WOULD HAVE PREVENTED OUR CONFUSION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR INDICATED THAT HIS MAIN CONCERN WAS THAT ONLY RWY 9L WAS IDENTIFIED ON TXWY Y AND SUGGESTED THAT IDENTIFYING BOTH RWY 9L AND 27R WOULD BE HELPFUL. HE CLAIMED THAT DURING MOST TXWY Y OPS; ATC WAS CONTINUALLY REFERRING TO RWY 27R IN THEIR INSTRUCTIONS. THE RPTR ALSO RELAYED THAT ATC'S TECHNIQUE; OF ONLY SOMETIMES REQUIRING ACFT TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 27R/9L; ADDED TO THE CONFUSION. HE EXPRESSED THAT THE NEW PRM APCH MIGHT ONLY ADD TO THE EXISTING CONFUSION BECAUSE OF THE ANTICIPATED INCREASE USE OF RWYS 27L/27R FOR BOTH ARRIVALS AND DEPS.