Narrative:

ATIS duty runway 17. Subject aircraft cleared to 'taxi to runway 26.' we taxied from GA, north on taxiway C and crossed runway 8/26. Both student and myself were thinking runway 8, which involved taxiway B. Frankly, neither of us noticed taxiway D. We 'blew it' by taxiing across 'an assigned runway.' I don't think ground control will file a violation because the clearance was to runway 26. No txwys were ever mentioned. The pns airport has not done a very good job of publishing the airport diagram. I am concerned that the quality of runway/taxiway lighting and taxiway signs may cause confusion to pilots not familiar with the layout of the airport. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: a tower specialist stated that publication notification had not been timely and were waiting for the 'process' to be completed. He was not surprised that ASRS had received complaints about the airport diagrams not being up-to-date. The commercial chart publisher had not received FAA or airport notification about the airport diagram changes. He said he would initiate coordination with pns airport officials to obtain change information. The reporter freely admits that, after obtaining a taxi clearance to runway 26, in his mind he still was thinking runway 8. Therefore, he crossed runway 8/26. When checking his charts, he noticed that both the government and commercial charts were not correctly depicting new taxiway construction. Also, later, when landing on runway 17, exiting onto taxiway D, he wasn't sure if the runway 17/35 edge light should be located in the middle of taxiway D. It caused him additional confusion as to whether he should be entering the taxiway or not.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PA28 INSTRUCTOR AND TRAINEE OBTAIN TAXI CLRNC TO PNS RWY 26 AND TAXI ACROSS RWY 8 WITHOUT CLRNC. INSTRUCTOR STATES THAT PUBLISHED ARPT DIAGRAMS DO NOT DEPICT TXWYS RESULTED FROM NEW ARPT CONSTRUCTION. INSTRUCTOR ADMITS ERROR.

Narrative: ATIS DUTY RWY 17. SUBJECT ACFT CLRED TO 'TAXI TO RWY 26.' WE TAXIED FROM GA, N ON TXWY C AND CROSSED RWY 8/26. BOTH STUDENT AND MYSELF WERE THINKING RWY 8, WHICH INVOLVED TXWY B. FRANKLY, NEITHER OF US NOTICED TXWY D. WE 'BLEW IT' BY TAXIING ACROSS 'AN ASSIGNED RWY.' I DON'T THINK GND CTL WILL FILE A VIOLATION BECAUSE THE CLRNC WAS TO RWY 26. NO TXWYS WERE EVER MENTIONED. THE PNS ARPT HAS NOT DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF PUBLISHING THE ARPT DIAGRAM. I AM CONCERNED THAT THE QUALITY OF RWY/TXWY LIGHTING AND TXWY SIGNS MAY CAUSE CONFUSION TO PLTS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE LAYOUT OF THE ARPT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: A TWR SPECIALIST STATED THAT PUB NOTIFICATION HAD NOT BEEN TIMELY AND WERE WAITING FOR THE 'PROCESS' TO BE COMPLETED. HE WAS NOT SURPRISED THAT ASRS HAD RECEIVED COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE ARPT DIAGRAMS NOT BEING UP-TO-DATE. THE COMMERCIAL CHART PUBLISHER HAD NOT RECEIVED FAA OR ARPT NOTIFICATION ABOUT THE ARPT DIAGRAM CHANGES. HE SAID HE WOULD INITIATE COORD WITH PNS ARPT OFFICIALS TO OBTAIN CHANGE INFO. THE RPTR FREELY ADMITS THAT, AFTER OBTAINING A TAXI CLRNC TO RWY 26, IN HIS MIND HE STILL WAS THINKING RWY 8. THEREFORE, HE CROSSED RWY 8/26. WHEN CHKING HIS CHARTS, HE NOTICED THAT BOTH THE GOV AND COMMERCIAL CHARTS WERE NOT CORRECTLY DEPICTING NEW TXWY CONSTRUCTION. ALSO, LATER, WHEN LNDG ON RWY 17, EXITING ONTO TXWY D, HE WASN'T SURE IF THE RWY 17/35 EDGE LIGHT SHOULD BE LOCATED IN THE MIDDLE OF TXWY D. IT CAUSED HIM ADDITIONAL CONFUSION AS TO WHETHER HE SHOULD BE ENTERING THE TXWY OR NOT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.