RV12 pilot reported that after landing on runway 32 at gai; the taxiways were not available due to c...

Narrative:

Gai has published two notams that express the following information:taxiway F; east; D; taxiway parallel taxiway adjacent runway 14/32 between taxiway F and taxiway C closed. Xx sep xa:22 2017 until yy xi:00 2017.and:taxiway all between self fuel ramp and runway 14 threshold closed. Xx sep xb:34 2017 until yy xi:00 2017The notams only address the taxiways. No mention of the runway exits to the taxiways. Notams lack any real actionable detail. Unfortunately; the a/FD (airport/facility directory) diagram of the airport does not show any of the taxiway designations - only shows the actual taxiways; not the labeling. Hence; a landing pilot cannot know that all of the runway 32 taxiway exits other than the first one are closed (for which; any aircraft other than a STOL aircraft won't be an option). These exits are closed; literally with zero asphalt. Hence; landings on either 32 or 14 require a taxi back at landing or departure with no ability to exit the runway at any other point than the start of 32 (which is not described in the notams).here; I landed on 32 and because the taxiways were not available; I needed to taxi back. However; another aircraft was behind me on final. While I pulled off into the grass to avoid a possible on-runway conflict; the pilot in the twin behind me executed a go around successfully. The core issue here is the appropriateness of how construction at this airport is undertaken. Without any taxiway (runway exits specifically) available; the potential for a realized conflict is much higher than it needs to be. The airport should have planned the construction in appropriate phases to avoid the unavailability of at least one exit at each end of the runway (regardless of the taxiway availability; minimally provide exit space to resolve a possible conflict); reducing the real possibility of an incident or accident. Given the very high traffic level at this airport; the approach to construction and closures was not well thought out in respect to flight safety.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RV12 pilot reported that after landing on Runway 32 at GAI; the taxiways were not available due to construction. He was forced to taxi onto the grass due to an aircraft on short final.

Narrative: GAI has published two NOTAMs that express the following information:TAXIWAY F; E; D; TAXIWAY PARALLEL TAXIWAY ADJACENT RUNWAY 14/32 BETWEEN TAXIWAY F AND TAXIWAY C CLOSED. XX SEP XA:22 2017 UNTIL YY XI:00 2017.And:TAXIWAY ALL BETWEEN SELF FUEL RAMP AND RUNWAY 14 THRESHOLD CLOSED. XX SEP XB:34 2017 UNTIL YY XI:00 2017The NOTAMs only address the taxiways. No mention of the runway exits to the taxiways. NOTAMs lack any real actionable detail. Unfortunately; the A/FD (Airport/Facility Directory) diagram of the airport does not show any of the taxiway designations - only shows the actual taxiways; not the labeling. Hence; a landing pilot cannot know that all of the runway 32 taxiway exits other than the first one are closed (for which; any aircraft other than a STOL aircraft won't be an option). These exits are closed; literally with zero asphalt. Hence; landings on either 32 or 14 require a taxi back at landing or departure with no ability to exit the runway at any other point than the start of 32 (which is not described in the NOTAMs).Here; I landed on 32 and because the taxiways were not available; I needed to taxi back. However; another aircraft was behind me on final. While I pulled off into the grass to avoid a possible on-runway conflict; the pilot in the twin behind me executed a go around successfully. The core issue here is the appropriateness of how construction at this airport is undertaken. Without any taxiway (runway exits specifically) available; the potential for a realized conflict is much higher than it needs to be. The airport should have planned the construction in appropriate phases to avoid the unavailability of at least one exit at each end of the runway (regardless of the taxiway availability; minimally provide exit space to resolve a possible conflict); reducing the real possibility of an incident or accident. Given the very high traffic level at this airport; the approach to construction and closures was not well thought out in respect to flight safety.

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.

Attributes
ACN	1483534
Time
Date	201709
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	GAI.Airport
State Reference	MD
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	RV-12
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Taxi
Route In Use	Direct
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Function	Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Student
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 9 Flight Crew Total 48 Flight Crew Type 48
Events
Anomaly	Conflict Ground Conflict Less Severe Ground Excursion Runway

RV12 pilot reported that after landing on runway 32 at gai; the taxiways were not available due to construction. He was forced to taxi onto the grass due to an aircraft on short final.