An instructor pilot reported a near runway incursion at isp claiming the combined ATC position opera...

Narrative:

My student and I made a full stop landing at isp after completing several takeoff and landings on runway 24. The controller was operating on one frequency for ground and flight. The controller was extremely busy and did an excellent job in controlling traffic. We made an uneventful full stop landing on runway 24 and turned off at bravo. The controller was extremely busy and handling both the tower and ground positions. The controller rapidly gave us a taxi clearance to 'taxi via taxiway bravo (B) charlie (C) sierra (south) cross runway 10 (non-active runway) via taxi way (a) to our FBO'. I believe I properly read back the clearance and my student then proceed to taxi. Instead of crossing runway 10 (non-active runway); we turned right and proceeded to taxi to the alpha (a) taxiway via runway 10. I noticed my error as I approached the hold line for runway 24. I held my position; did not taxi pass the runway 24 hold line and advised the very busy controller that I was holding short runway 24 at the intersection of 24 and 10. The controller immediately became concerned; rightfully so. He ordered me to hold my position; which I did. At no time did I cross the hold line for the active runway 24. No runway incursion occurred and I was fully aware of my position on the airport. I believe this situation occurred because of a few reasons. The very fast ground clearance; the controller being busy and my mistake by not confirming immediately to the controller that I had turned on the non-active runway instead on crossing over it. I believe that this situation could have been prevented had the tower been manned with two controllers on tower and ground. I thought the controller; although very professional and competent; was on occasion overwhelmed with the with the very busy airport traffic pattern and ground operations. I am very familiar with FAA procedures. My reasons for reporting this incident is two fold. I believe that one controller operating two positions at a very busy time of day is not safe. My intentions for reporting this situation is for safety and I believe had I not been experienced; I might have caused a serious runway incursion at the intersection of runways 10-24 because the controller was too busy to notice that I had turned on an non-active runway.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An Instructor Pilot reported a near runway incursion at ISP claiming the combined ATC position operation and workload was a contributing to the confused tax instructions.

Narrative: My student and I made a full stop landing at ISP after completing several takeoff and landings on Runway 24. The Controller was operating on one frequency for ground and flight. The Controller was extremely busy and did an excellent job in controlling traffic. We made an uneventful full stop landing on Runway 24 and turned off at Bravo. The Controller was extremely busy and handling both the Tower and Ground positions. The Controller rapidly gave us a taxi clearance to 'TAXI VIA TAXIWAY BRAVO (B) CHARLIE (C) SIERRA (S) CROSS RUNWAY 10 (NON-ACTIVE RUNWAY) VIA TAXI WAY (A) TO OUR FBO'. I believe I properly read back the clearance and my student then proceed to taxi. Instead of crossing Runway 10 (NON-ACTIVE RUNWAY); we turned right and proceeded to taxi to the ALPHA (A) Taxiway via Runway 10. I noticed my error as I approached the hold line for Runway 24. I held my position; did not taxi pass the Runway 24 hold line and advised the very busy Controller that I was holding short Runway 24 at the intersection of 24 and 10. The Controller immediately became concerned; rightfully so. He ordered me to hold my position; which I did. At no time did I cross the hold line for the active Runway 24. NO RUNWAY INCURSION OCCURRED AND I WAS FULLY AWARE OF MY POSITION ON THE AIRPORT. I believe this situation occurred because of a few reasons. The very fast ground clearance; the Controller being busy and my mistake by not confirming immediately to the Controller that I had turned on the non-active runway instead on crossing over it. I believe that this situation could have been prevented had the Tower been manned with two controllers on Tower and Ground. I thought the Controller; although very professional and competent; was on occasion overwhelmed with the with the very busy airport traffic pattern and ground operations. I am very familiar with FAA procedures. My reasons for reporting this incident is two fold. I believe that one controller operating two positions at a very busy time of day is not safe. My intentions for reporting this situation is for safety and I believe had I not been experienced; I might have caused a serious runway incursion at the intersection of Runways 10-24 because the Controller was too busy to notice that I had turned on an non-active runway.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.

Attributes
ACN	955078
Time
Date	201106
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	ISP.Airport
State Reference	NY
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Taxi
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Function	Instructor Pilot Not Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Instrument
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 25 Flight Crew Total 8000 Flight Crew Type 400
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Clearance Ground Incursion Runway Ground Incursion Taxiway

An instructor pilot reported a near runway incursion at isp claiming the combined ATC position operation and workload was a contributing to the confused tax instructions.