Narrative:

How problem arose: PIC contacted ground and received taxi instruction at cdw (nj). PIC was instructed to taxi to runway 22 with taxiway north at north intersection. PIC did not focus properly as used taxiway north and crossed runway 27 (incursion) to access runway 22. Contributing factors: PIC has been based at cdw for 2 yrs and 8 months. Aircraft departures have been over 98% for a runway 27 departure. Cdw uses runway 22 only for IFR departures and aircraft more closely situated to runway 22. As an instrument rated PIC, I have often used runway 22 for IFR departure and always am given the same clearance to taxi to runway 22 using taxiway north then taxiway P for departure. This was the first time PIC was given clearance described above. As is my ordinary routine, I always inform ground when crossing an active runway. While not necessary, it is prudent at a larger twred airport. As I was taxiing on taxiway north and turning onto taxiway P, I informed ground that I was going to cross runway 27. Ground had at least 15-20 seconds to correct my action, but they did not. How it was discovered: after crossing runway 27 at P intersection, I was holding short of runway 22. When I switched to tower, I was instructed to contact ground. I switched communication to ground and was told there was a problem. They alerted me to the incursion of runway 27. Corrective actions: none were required, the active runway inappropriately crossed was clear of traffic and was verified by PIC prior to crossing. Human performance considerations: repetitive clrncs and thinking that there would be the same clearance (that I have received many times before). While the incursion happened, there was never any danger as landing traffic could be seen if it was present. I have reviewed the taxiway diagrams thoroughly and before that I have learned a lesson about taking things for granted.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C210 TAXIING FOR DEP AT CDW CROSSED RWY WITHOUT CLRNC.

Narrative: HOW PROB AROSE: PIC CONTACTED GND AND RECEIVED TAXI INSTRUCTION AT CDW (NJ). PIC WAS INSTRUCTED TO TAXI TO RWY 22 WITH TXWY N AT N INTXN. PIC DID NOT FOCUS PROPERLY AS USED TXWY N AND CROSSED RWY 27 (INCURSION) TO ACCESS RWY 22. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: PIC HAS BEEN BASED AT CDW FOR 2 YRS AND 8 MONTHS. ACFT DEPS HAVE BEEN OVER 98% FOR A RWY 27 DEP. CDW USES RWY 22 ONLY FOR IFR DEPS AND ACFT MORE CLOSELY SITUATED TO RWY 22. AS AN INST RATED PIC, I HAVE OFTEN USED RWY 22 FOR IFR DEP AND ALWAYS AM GIVEN THE SAME CLRNC TO TAXI TO RWY 22 USING TXWY N THEN TXWY P FOR DEP. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME PIC WAS GIVEN CLRNC DESCRIBED ABOVE. AS IS MY ORDINARY ROUTINE, I ALWAYS INFORM GND WHEN XING AN ACTIVE RWY. WHILE NOT NECESSARY, IT IS PRUDENT AT A LARGER TWRED ARPT. AS I WAS TAXIING ON TXWY N AND TURNING ONTO TXWY P, I INFORMED GND THAT I WAS GOING TO CROSS RWY 27. GND HAD AT LEAST 15-20 SECONDS TO CORRECT MY ACTION, BUT THEY DID NOT. HOW IT WAS DISCOVERED: AFTER XING RWY 27 AT P INTXN, I WAS HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 22. WHEN I SWITCHED TO TWR, I WAS INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT GND. I SWITCHED COM TO GND AND WAS TOLD THERE WAS A PROB. THEY ALERTED ME TO THE INCURSION OF RWY 27. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: NONE WERE REQUIRED, THE ACTIVE RWY INAPPROPRIATELY CROSSED WAS CLR OF TFC AND WAS VERIFIED BY PIC PRIOR TO XING. HUMAN PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REPETITIVE CLRNCS AND THINKING THAT THERE WOULD BE THE SAME CLRNC (THAT I HAVE RECEIVED MANY TIMES BEFORE). WHILE THE INCURSION HAPPENED, THERE WAS NEVER ANY DANGER AS LNDG TFC COULD BE SEEN IF IT WAS PRESENT. I HAVE REVIEWED THE TXWY DIAGRAMS THOROUGHLY AND BEFORE THAT I HAVE LEARNED A LESSON ABOUT TAKING THINGS FOR GRANTED.

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.