Narrative:

Received IFR clearance on ramp at new, located west of taxiway a near departure end of runway 18R. ATIS indicated runways 18L and 18R in use. I then received taxi clearance on ground frequency to 'taxi runway 18R via taxiway a and intersection a.' there was no indication that I should expect an intersection takeoff, nor a specification of remaining taxi path. I had the govt taxi diagram open, and I looked at it prior to taxi. Taxiway a has a labeled intersection at the south end of runway 18R, an intersection 'a-1' part way up the runway. The north end of taxiway a is also labeled on the chart as 'a,' but it is at an angle and appears to be a high speed exit. Runway intxns increase from south to north on the airport, so logically intersection 'a' should be at the south end. Note that runway distances for the intxns are not labeled on the chart nor in the afm. I began to taxi to the south intersection labeled 'a.' I visually checked for aircraft on approach, departure, or on the runway and, seeing none, proceeded to start to cross runway 18R at the south 'a' intersection, expecting to use the full length of the runway. Ground control told me to stop and advised I was entering the wrong intersection. I held short, past the hold line but short of the runway. Ground then gave me clearance to taxi to runway 18R via taxiway B. I violated regulations by attempting to cross the assigned runway without clearance. Subsequent to this event, I studied the FAA regulations, aim, and rechked the charts for the airport. I determined that I entered to cross the assigned runway without clearance. In my flying hours, I have not been at an airport where I needed to cross the assigned runway to taxi full-length without being given a hold short instruction. Further, I am almost never assigned or given intersection takeoffs without an 'expect' instruction or runway length information. Compounding the problem was the duplicate intersection information on the govt chart. The commercial chart, which I did not have, does not have the confusion. I believe that several things could have helped to avoid this incursion. First, the govt chart should be better labeled to avoid confusing labels. Perhaps 'a-2' could label the southern intersection. Second, ground control could have (and in my opinion should have) provided more information, such as 'cleared to intersection a, expect intersection departure' or 'runway length XXXX ft from intersection a, taxi to runway 18R, intersection a.' runway length is an important piece of takeoff information, and it is not available from any other source. I learned that the runway length for intersection takeoffs is currently only required to be given on request or to military aircraft (without request) per order 7110.65N, chapter 3. It would be a good idea to give this for all aircraft since the information is not published. Given that it was hot and I was at maximum gross weight (with a reluctant flyer as a passenger), I would not have accepted the decreased safety margin of an intersection takeoff on this day. Tower should not presume that an aircraft is capable of intersection takeoff without specifying available length. Ground control could also have provided more information on where intersection a was, and I could have asked for more information, such as a progressive taxi. I was unfamiliar with the airport, and I relied on the chart, which was inaccurate. This was compounded by my infrequent use of airports where hold short instructions are not given, and where intersection takeoffs are given without additional information. I have since reviewed the regulations and the pilot organization ground operations course. I feel confident that I will recognize the issue in the future and ask for progressive instructions and/or intersection information at unfamiliar airports in the future. Any one of these items would have instantly clarified the intent of the assignment from ground control. Luckily it was fairly early on a sunday morning with little traffic at the airport.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AC11 TAXIING FOR DEP AT NEW ENTERED RWY WITHOUT ATC CLRNC.

Narrative: RECEIVED IFR CLRNC ON RAMP AT NEW, LOCATED W OF TXWY A NEAR DEP END OF RWY 18R. ATIS INDICATED RWYS 18L AND 18R IN USE. I THEN RECEIVED TAXI CLRNC ON GND FREQ TO 'TAXI RWY 18R VIA TXWY A AND INTXN A.' THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT I SHOULD EXPECT AN INTXN TKOF, NOR A SPECIFICATION OF REMAINING TAXI PATH. I HAD THE GOVT TAXI DIAGRAM OPEN, AND I LOOKED AT IT PRIOR TO TAXI. TXWY A HAS A LABELED INTXN AT THE S END OF RWY 18R, AN INTXN 'A-1' PART WAY UP THE RWY. THE N END OF TXWY A IS ALSO LABELED ON THE CHART AS 'A,' BUT IT IS AT AN ANGLE AND APPEARS TO BE A HIGH SPD EXIT. RWY INTXNS INCREASE FROM S TO N ON THE ARPT, SO LOGICALLY INTXN 'A' SHOULD BE AT THE S END. NOTE THAT RWY DISTANCES FOR THE INTXNS ARE NOT LABELED ON THE CHART NOR IN THE AFM. I BEGAN TO TAXI TO THE S INTXN LABELED 'A.' I VISUALLY CHKED FOR ACFT ON APCH, DEP, OR ON THE RWY AND, SEEING NONE, PROCEEDED TO START TO CROSS RWY 18R AT THE S 'A' INTXN, EXPECTING TO USE THE FULL LENGTH OF THE RWY. GND CTL TOLD ME TO STOP AND ADVISED I WAS ENTERING THE WRONG INTXN. I HELD SHORT, PAST THE HOLD LINE BUT SHORT OF THE RWY. GND THEN GAVE ME CLRNC TO TAXI TO RWY 18R VIA TXWY B. I VIOLATED REGS BY ATTEMPTING TO CROSS THE ASSIGNED RWY WITHOUT CLRNC. SUBSEQUENT TO THIS EVENT, I STUDIED THE FAA REGS, AIM, AND RECHKED THE CHARTS FOR THE ARPT. I DETERMINED THAT I ENTERED TO CROSS THE ASSIGNED RWY WITHOUT CLRNC. IN MY FLYING HOURS, I HAVE NOT BEEN AT AN ARPT WHERE I NEEDED TO CROSS THE ASSIGNED RWY TO TAXI FULL-LENGTH WITHOUT BEING GIVEN A HOLD SHORT INSTRUCTION. FURTHER, I AM ALMOST NEVER ASSIGNED OR GIVEN INTXN TKOFS WITHOUT AN 'EXPECT' INSTRUCTION OR RWY LENGTH INFO. COMPOUNDING THE PROB WAS THE DUPLICATE INTXN INFO ON THE GOVT CHART. THE COMMERCIAL CHART, WHICH I DID NOT HAVE, DOES NOT HAVE THE CONFUSION. I BELIEVE THAT SEVERAL THINGS COULD HAVE HELPED TO AVOID THIS INCURSION. FIRST, THE GOVT CHART SHOULD BE BETTER LABELED TO AVOID CONFUSING LABELS. PERHAPS 'A-2' COULD LABEL THE SOUTHERN INTXN. SECOND, GND CTL COULD HAVE (AND IN MY OPINION SHOULD HAVE) PROVIDED MORE INFO, SUCH AS 'CLRED TO INTXN A, EXPECT INTXN DEP' OR 'RWY LENGTH XXXX FT FROM INTXN A, TAXI TO RWY 18R, INTXN A.' RWY LENGTH IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF TKOF INFO, AND IT IS NOT AVAILABLE FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. I LEARNED THAT THE RWY LENGTH FOR INTXN TKOFS IS CURRENTLY ONLY REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN ON REQUEST OR TO MIL ACFT (WITHOUT REQUEST) PER ORDER 7110.65N, CHAPTER 3. IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO GIVE THIS FOR ALL ACFT SINCE THE INFO IS NOT PUBLISHED. GIVEN THAT IT WAS HOT AND I WAS AT MAX GROSS WT (WITH A RELUCTANT FLYER AS A PAX), I WOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED THE DECREASED SAFETY MARGIN OF AN INTXN TKOF ON THIS DAY. TWR SHOULD NOT PRESUME THAT AN ACFT IS CAPABLE OF INTXN TKOF WITHOUT SPECIFYING AVAILABLE LENGTH. GND CTL COULD ALSO HAVE PROVIDED MORE INFO ON WHERE INTXN A WAS, AND I COULD HAVE ASKED FOR MORE INFO, SUCH AS A PROGRESSIVE TAXI. I WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE ARPT, AND I RELIED ON THE CHART, WHICH WAS INACCURATE. THIS WAS COMPOUNDED BY MY INFREQUENT USE OF ARPTS WHERE HOLD SHORT INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT GIVEN, AND WHERE INTXN TKOFS ARE GIVEN WITHOUT ADDITIONAL INFO. I HAVE SINCE REVIEWED THE REGS AND THE PLT ORGANIZATION GND OPS COURSE. I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT I WILL RECOGNIZE THE ISSUE IN THE FUTURE AND ASK FOR PROGRESSIVE INSTRUCTIONS AND/OR INTXN INFO AT UNFAMILIAR ARPTS IN THE FUTURE. ANY ONE OF THESE ITEMS WOULD HAVE INSTANTLY CLARIFIED THE INTENT OF THE ASSIGNMENT FROM GND CTL. LUCKILY IT WAS FAIRLY EARLY ON A SUNDAY MORNING WITH LITTLE TFC AT THE ARPT.

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.