|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : mynn|
|Altitude||agl bound lower : 0|
agl bound upper : 0
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng|
|Flight Phase||climbout : takeoff|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Qualification||pilot : flight engineer|
pilot : atp
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 180|
flight time total : 9000
flight time type : 2500
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
|Anomaly||other anomaly other|
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : detected after the fact|
|Air Traffic Incident||other|
|Airport||other physical facility|
procedure or policy : unspecified
Inbound for landing at mynn with the captain flying, approach control asked us to report the airport in sight and advised that they were using runway 32. The ATIS was notamed OTS and not working. Nothing was said by approach control to indicate that the runway might be foreshortened. In fact, when we first sighted the runway, a widebody transport aircraft was at the far end of 32 starting his takeoff roll. We switched to tower and were cleared to land upon calling the base turn. No mention was made by the tower as to adjusted runway length or displaced threshold. From our position on final, runway markings were normal, ie, no 'X's,' chevrons, dashed arrows, etc. Our landing T/D point was normal. Upon taxi out for takeoff on the same runway a white line painted across the runway was noted for the first time and it appeared to look like a threshold marking. Other aircraft however were observed operating on the full length. The weight and balance computations supplied by the company gave us no clue because they were figured for runway 9. By referring to our performance and planning manual showing takeoff performance capability and runway length for runway 32, no indication of a shorten runway was shown. Nor were any supplemental pages given to us by the company which is usually done if full runways length is not available. Ground control made no reference during taxi instructions about a displaced threshold. When tower cleared us for takeoff we were on the downwind side of the questionable threshold mark. After takeoff I referred back to the NOTAMS. It was at this time that I first realized or determined that apparently there was supposed to be a displaced threshold. Because the NOTAM was poorly worded and lacked punctuation, it was easy to see how it was missed or misinterpreted the first time. Compounding this scenario was the inoperative ATIS, no advice by ATC, other aircraft using the full length, and normal runway markings remaining (in 'usable' portion). It is wondered if the intent by the airport was to use the full runway and they had first failed to remove the NOTAM which was over 2 months old.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: RWY THRESHOLD WAS POSSIBLY DISPLACED, BUT NOBODY SEEMED TO BE COMPLYING WITH IT.
Narrative: INBND FOR LNDG AT MYNN WITH THE CAPT FLYING, APCH CTL ASKED US TO RPT THE ARPT IN SIGHT AND ADVISED THAT THEY WERE USING RWY 32. THE ATIS WAS NOTAMED OTS AND NOT WORKING. NOTHING WAS SAID BY APCH CTL TO INDICATE THAT THE RWY MIGHT BE FORESHORTENED. IN FACT, WHEN WE FIRST SIGHTED THE RWY, A WDB ACFT WAS AT THE FAR END OF 32 STARTING HIS TKOF ROLL. WE SWITCHED TO TWR AND WERE CLRED TO LAND UPON CALLING THE BASE TURN. NO MENTION WAS MADE BY THE TWR AS TO ADJUSTED RWY LENGTH OR DISPLACED THRESHOLD. FROM OUR POS ON FINAL, RWY MARKINGS WERE NORMAL, IE, NO 'X'S,' CHEVRONS, DASHED ARROWS, ETC. OUR LNDG T/D POINT WAS NORMAL. UPON TAXI OUT FOR TKOF ON THE SAME RWY A WHITE LINE PAINTED ACROSS THE RWY WAS NOTED FOR THE FIRST TIME AND IT APPEARED TO LOOK LIKE A THRESHOLD MARKING. OTHER ACFT HOWEVER WERE OBSERVED OPERATING ON THE FULL LENGTH. THE WT AND BAL COMPUTATIONS SUPPLIED BY THE COMPANY GAVE US NO CLUE BECAUSE THEY WERE FIGURED FOR RWY 9. BY REFERRING TO OUR PERFORMANCE AND PLANNING MANUAL SHOWING TKOF PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY AND RWY LENGTH FOR RWY 32, NO INDICATION OF A SHORTEN RWY WAS SHOWN. NOR WERE ANY SUPPLEMENTAL PAGES GIVEN TO US BY THE COMPANY WHICH IS USUALLY DONE IF FULL RWYS LENGTH IS NOT AVAILABLE. GND CTL MADE NO REF DURING TAXI INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT A DISPLACED THRESHOLD. WHEN TWR CLRED US FOR TKOF WE WERE ON THE DOWNWIND SIDE OF THE QUESTIONABLE THRESHOLD MARK. AFTER TKOF I REFERRED BACK TO THE NOTAMS. IT WAS AT THIS TIME THAT I FIRST REALIZED OR DETERMINED THAT APPARENTLY THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A DISPLACED THRESHOLD. BECAUSE THE NOTAM WAS POORLY WORDED AND LACKED PUNCTUATION, IT WAS EASY TO SEE HOW IT WAS MISSED OR MISINTERPRETED THE FIRST TIME. COMPOUNDING THIS SCENARIO WAS THE INOP ATIS, NO ADVICE BY ATC, OTHER ACFT USING THE FULL LENGTH, AND NORMAL RWY MARKINGS REMAINING (IN 'USABLE' PORTION). IT IS WONDERED IF THE INTENT BY THE ARPT WAS TO USE THE FULL RWY AND THEY HAD FIRST FAILED TO REMOVE THE NOTAM WHICH WAS OVER 2 MONTHS OLD.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.