An air carrier flight crew used the east 600 ft closed section of jnu runway 8/26 as part of the tak...

Narrative:

On departure from jnu off runway 26; we were notified by jnu tower to contact them with a 'possible pilot deviation.' after landing I phoned jnu tower and was informed that we had taken off on a closed portion of the runway and to hold to speak to the supervisor. Supervisor stated we had taken off from the closed end of runway 26 and it was being reported. I explained that apparently we had mistaken the closed portion as being beyond the barricades and flags and the fact that there were construction vehicles operating beyond the barricades. The supervisor said that a previous air carrier flight conducted the same operation and had reported the same reason for using the closed portion. The supervisor indicated they might need to reassess their methods for more clearly identifying the closure. The supervisor further stated the closure was in a fdc NOTAM. I told her it would have been appreciated had the tower controller acted to warn us not to takeoff from the closed portion. The supervisor obviously observed us back taxi and takeoff and contacted us in the initial climbout. Primary cause was my personal failure to read; understand and apply the fdc NOTAM in the flight paperwork. I believe as I scanned the first part of the NOTAM I misinterpreted the relocated threshold as displaced threshold and moved on. Contributing causes were: most construction closures I have experienced have utilized a large X on the runway surface and or signs with barricades blocking entrance into the closed portion. The barricades and flags sucked us in. Inconsistencies in the landing clearance we received on arrival vs. The takeoff clearance verbiage; ie.; 'cleared to land runway 8 shortened' vs. 'Cleared to takeoff runway 26;' no mention of shortened. I had expectations of back taxiing to the end to utilize the total available surface for takeoff. Day 3 of 4 day trip with close to 8 hour block on day 1; over 8 hours on day two; early van times everyday and 3 hour time zone swaps. First officer and I discussed what we perceived to be the closed end; we agreed and continued back taxi for takeoff. I should have queried the tower to confirm. Long and short of it is I blew it. In the future I will take as much time to ensure the regulatory requirements of the flight as I spend on ensuring the safe operation of the flight.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An Air Carrier flight crew used the east 600 FT closed section of JNU Runway 8/26 as part of the takeoff runway because the runway closure makings; lights and barricades did not clearly define the usable beginning of Runway 26.

Narrative: On departure from JNU off Runway 26; we were notified by JNU Tower to contact them with a 'possible pilot deviation.' After landing I phoned JNU Tower and was informed that we had taken off on a closed portion of the runway and to hold to speak to the Supervisor. Supervisor stated we had taken off from the closed end of Runway 26 and it was being reported. I explained that apparently we had mistaken the closed portion as being beyond the barricades and flags and the fact that there were construction vehicles operating beyond the barricades. The Supervisor said that a previous air carrier flight conducted the same operation and had reported the same reason for using the closed portion. The Supervisor indicated they might need to reassess their methods for more clearly identifying the closure. The Supervisor further stated the closure was in a FDC NOTAM. I told her it would have been appreciated had the Tower Controller acted to warn us not to takeoff from the closed portion. The Supervisor obviously observed us back taxi and takeoff and contacted us in the initial climbout. Primary cause was my personal failure to read; understand and apply the FDC NOTAM in the flight paperwork. I believe as I scanned the first part of the NOTAM I misinterpreted the relocated threshold as displaced threshold and moved on. Contributing causes were: Most construction closures I have experienced have utilized a large X on the runway surface and or signs with barricades blocking entrance into the closed portion. The barricades and flags sucked us in. Inconsistencies in the landing clearance we received on arrival vs. the takeoff clearance verbiage; IE.; 'Cleared to land Runway 8 shortened' vs. 'Cleared to takeoff Runway 26;' no mention of shortened. I had expectations of back taxiing to the end to utilize the total available surface for takeoff. Day 3 of 4 day trip with close to 8 hour block on Day 1; over 8 hours on day two; early van times everyday and 3 hour time zone swaps. First Officer and I discussed what we perceived to be the closed end; we agreed and continued back taxi for takeoff. I should have queried the Tower to confirm. Long and short of it is I blew it. In the future I will take as much time to ensure the regulatory requirements of the flight as I spend on ensuring the safe operation of the flight.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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	1044014
Time
Date	201210
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	JNU.Airport
State Reference	AK
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Large Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Takeoff
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Captain Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Person 2
Function	Local
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown Ground Incursion Runway

An air carrier flight crew used the east 600 ft closed section of jnu runway 8/26 as part of the takeoff runway because the runway closure makings; lights and barricades did not clearly define the usable beginning of runway 26.