Originally Posted by
punkalouver
Shouldn't matter if done in a manner designed to minimize incidents like this. That would be: The controller says "American 106 cross 31 Left". The pilot on the radio reads back "Cross 31 Left American 106". The pilot taxiing says out loud "Cleared to cross 31L" and looks at the hold short sign or painted markings that have the runway number and says "31L cleared to cross, clear left". If they find themselves saying 4 Left so soon after saying 31 Left, it should trigger doubt and the aircraft does not proceed until confirmation that they are cleared to cross 4L. At first, they will think that ATC made the error and just want confirmation to cross 4L. After some back and forth with ATC, it will eventually become apparent to the AA pilots that they had become confused and eventually things get figured out. But everything is figured out safely because the pilots never moved beyond the 4L sign because they never heard the words "cleared to cross 4 Left".
If you freeze this video at 13:52, you will notice that you can see the hold short painting markings and the runway signs even when very close to the hold short line. Think of a clearance to cross the runway as a clearance to move beyond paint markings/signs of the same number.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YyScI9vSUc
I still think knowing your departure runway before taxi and reading it back is not to be underestimated. I don't know for sure in this case but it seems likely the PF *thought* they were departing 31L, hence my answer to the previous poster. This may explain why he thought he was cleared to cross 4L. I am not convinced your process would solve this as it doesn't address the bias that may override what seems like a solid approach. After all, the actual clearance to cross was clear but was not digested fully by either crew. *my assumption based on what happened next* I am theorising why. You may disagree but we for sure need understand and account for its cause in whatever solutions are put forward.