Narrative:

While turning final for the visual approach a non-revenue passenger captain called over the PA intercom. Yes; it was during sterile cockpit; but it saved us from violating an fom limitation; to ask if we were landing on runway 8. As pilot monitoring; I assumed it must be important if the flight attendant was calling at this time; so I answered. It is the passenger's commuter airport and he apparently noticed the path we were flying. He informed me that he believed runway 8 was too narrow to comply with our limitations for runway width. Taking his word for it; I advised the first officer we should request another landing runway. The first officer executed a go-around and we received a new clearance to land on runway 17; and we landed safely. At the time of the original clearance; runway 8 was the active runway; had the most direct headwind; and the ACARS issued safe ample landing performance numbers.non-revving pilot called over the flight attendant intercom and advised that the runway of intended landing might not be wide enough for us to legally land on. After landing he advised me that he was non-revving on another flight that took off from the same runway; and the crew purportedly got in trouble for doing so. I don't recall if the flight release had landing numbers for that runway. Because ACARS produced safe landing performance numbers for the active runway I incorrectly made the assumption that it was a legal runway on which to land. I failed to check the 10-9 page for runway width. I also forgot; assuming I ever even knew; that the minimum runway width was 100 feet. Runway 8 is only 75 feet wide according to the 10-9A page. I advised tower that we'd need a different runway for operational reasons. We landed visually on runway 17 instead. Ultimately it falls on me for not checking the runway width; despite it being of sufficient length for safe landing performance numbers. I was also at fault for not more carefully perusing the flight release to see if all runways had landing data. Maybe it did; and wouldn't have made a difference; but maybe it didn't. I remember seeing the release had landing numbers; but I don't specifically remember checking for runway 8. It was definitely a learning experience; and neither of these will be oversights I'll have in the future; particularly for an airport I've only flown into a few times. That being said; I also have other suggestions for creating more barriers to avoiding a similar scenario in the future. First; the runway width limitation; and width verification (10-9 page) should be topics highlighted in training. I would venture to assume that most company pilots don't know what our limitation is for runway width. I incorrectly thought it was 75 feet. The limitation is one of those that appears in our fom; not our limitations section in AOM1. Second; ACARS should have some sort of filter that prevents it from providing numbers for runways we are not permitted to use. Finally; tower was potentially aware of the part 121 limitation against runway 8 usage. Yet; they continued to broadcast runway 8 as the active runway and offer it as a viable landing runway for a 121 operator. They could have questioned us on the legality or advised us against it's use.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier pilot reported a commuting pilot called the cockpit from the Flight Attendant phone and advised them the runway they were making an approach to was not wide enough for their type aircraft.

Narrative: While turning final for the Visual Approach a non-revenue passenger Captain called over the PA intercom. Yes; it was during sterile cockpit; but it saved us from violating an FOM limitation; to ask if we were landing on Runway 8. As Pilot Monitoring; I assumed it must be important if the Flight Attendant was calling at this time; so I answered. It is the passenger's commuter airport and he apparently noticed the path we were flying. He informed me that he believed Runway 8 was too narrow to comply with our limitations for runway width. Taking his word for it; I advised the First Officer we should request another landing runway. The First Officer executed a go-around and we received a new clearance to land on Runway 17; and we landed safely. At the time of the original clearance; Runway 8 was the active runway; had the most direct headwind; and the ACARS issued safe ample landing performance numbers.Non-revving pilot called over the Flight Attendant intercom and advised that the runway of intended landing might not be wide enough for us to legally land on. After landing he advised me that he was non-revving on another flight that took off from the same runway; and the crew purportedly got in trouble for doing so. I don't recall if the flight release had landing numbers for that runway. Because ACARS produced safe landing performance numbers for the active runway I incorrectly made the assumption that it was a legal runway on which to land. I failed to check the 10-9 page for runway width. I also forgot; assuming I ever even knew; that the minimum runway width was 100 feet. Runway 8 is only 75 feet wide according to the 10-9A page. I advised Tower that we'd need a different runway for operational reasons. We landed visually on Runway 17 instead. Ultimately it falls on me for not checking the runway width; despite it being of sufficient length for safe landing performance numbers. I was also at fault for not more carefully perusing the flight release to see if all runways had landing data. Maybe it did; and wouldn't have made a difference; but maybe it didn't. I remember seeing the release had landing numbers; but I don't specifically remember checking for runway 8. It was definitely a learning experience; and neither of these will be oversights I'll have in the future; particularly for an airport I've only flown into a few times. That being said; I also have other suggestions for creating more barriers to avoiding a similar scenario in the future. First; the runway width limitation; and width verification (10-9 page) should be topics highlighted in training. I would venture to assume that most company pilots don't know what our limitation is for runway width. I incorrectly thought it was 75 feet. The limitation is one of those that appears in our FOM; NOT our Limitations Section in AOM1. Second; ACARS should have some sort of filter that prevents it from providing numbers for runways we are not permitted to use. Finally; Tower was potentially aware of the Part 121 limitation against Runway 8 usage. Yet; they continued to broadcast Runway 8 as the active runway and offer it as a viable landing runway for a 121 operator. They could have questioned us on the legality or advised us against it's use.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.