UNAUTHORIZED RWY CROSSING BY COMMUTER.

Narrative

WHILE TAXIING FOR DEP FO INFORMED ME WE DIDN'T HAVE DATA (FIELD/RWY ANALYSIS FOR REQUESTED RWY); WHICH REALLY SURPRISED ME BECAUSE WE HAD JUST LANDED ON THE SAME RWY (28). AT THAT TIME IT BECAME APPARENT THAT FLC COM WAS VERY POOR. GND INFORMED US THAT INDEED WE HAD TAXIED TO RWY 28; OUR ORIGINAL REQUEST; AND THAT IF WE COULD MAKE A 180 DEG TURN WE COULD CROSS RWY 1/19 AND MAKE A L FOR NEW (RWY 1) DEP RWY. GND WAS VERY HELPFUL; PROFESSIONAL AND POLITE; AFTER REACHING THE CORRECT RWY FOR DEP I; AS PIC; TOOK A FEW MOMENTS TO BRIEF THE NEW HIRE; FO; WITH ALL OF THE CRM TACT AND SKILL I COULD MUSTER THAT I FELT HE AND I WERE NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTN TO ATC INSTRUCTIONS; AND WE WOULD NOT DO ANY MORE CHKLISTS WHILE TAXIING; WHICH IS SOP. I FEEL THE COMBINATION OF ANEW FO AND NEW DEST FOR ME WAS VERY HARD WORK ALTHOUGH WX WAS GOOD; I ELECTED TO FLY; AS PF; IN RETROSPECT; I WOULD HAVE HAD HIM FLY. ONE SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVEMENT; FOS AND CAPTS SHOULD HAVE TO COMPLETE SOME TRAINING BEFORE GOING INTO NEW CITIES; OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO PROVING RUNS BE CARRIED OUT WITH 2 CAPTS INITIALLY INTO NEW CITIES. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THIS WAS FIRST TIME INTO ALT FOR PIC AND FO. RWY DATA FOR THAT ACFT ON RWY 28 WAS NOT YET GIVEN TO FLCS OF THAT TYPE ACFT. IT WAS LEGAL FOR THEM TO LAND ON 28; BUT THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT AT THE TIME. RPTR WAS PIC AND SAYS HE GOT VERY UPSET WHEN FO TOLD HIM THEY DID NOT HAVE THE DATA. STOPPED TAXI SHORT OF RWY 1/19 AND ASKED FOR RWY 1 ASSIGNMENT FOR TKOF. TWR CTLR CHANGED RWY TO RWY 1 BUT PIC; STILL THINKING RWY 28 FOR SOME REASON; TAXIED ACROSS RWY 1 INSTEAD OF MAKING R TURN ON TAXIWAY 'A'. SAYS NO CONFLICTING TFC AND ATC DID NOT PURSUE THE INCIDENT. TWR CLRED THEM TO RECROSS RWY 1 TO GET BACK ON CORRECT TAXIWAY. FO WAS NEW TO COMPANY AND TYPE ACFT.