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.