Narrative:

After unloading cargo at microphone, I called by office/dispatchers. I was told to proceed to mvn. I asked about WX, runway length and facs. The dispatcher's response was, 'the WX is VFR, ILS approach and 6400' runway length.' also mvn FBO was contacted and they were expecting us. Upon reaching mvn we contacted unicom. We were given winds (southwest 5-10) and runway closure information, which we understood to be runway 33-15. At this time, we were downwind leg to runway 23-5, and I commented to the first officer that I was glad that the long runway (6400') was not closed. We landed on runway 23 and turned off the runway at the second exit from the end west/O much use of the brakes. Inside the FBO, we were told that I'd landed on the taxiway. I said that was not true, because I landed between white lights. Then I was informed that the 5-23 runway was closed, and the taxiway was restriped and white lights installed in place of the blue lights. Also they told me the length was 3600'. Fortunately, my takeoff weight was 20000#, and I could just legally use 3600' for takeoff. I tried to convey to the unicom operator that it was important to ensure that people landing at mvn were informed that the runway is only 3600'. The following lack of communication could have caused a $2 million jet and crew to crash through the barricades at the end of the taxiway during landing, or to be grounded because of lack of runway distance available for takeoff. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: dispatcher had NOTAM re: runway closure, but failed to give to reporter. When dispatch called FBO, no mention of runways or change in lighting was mentioned. Poor communication on part of unicom operator as well. Runway reopened following month. Closure was for maintenance.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CARGO FLT LANDS ON TXWY CHANGED TO TEMPORARY RWY WITHOUT INFORMATION ON LENGTH CHANGE FROM 6400 TO 3600'.

Narrative: AFTER UNLOADING CARGO AT MIC, I CALLED BY OFFICE/DISPATCHERS. I WAS TOLD TO PROCEED TO MVN. I ASKED ABOUT WX, RWY LENGTH AND FACS. THE DISPATCHER'S RESPONSE WAS, 'THE WX IS VFR, ILS APCH AND 6400' RWY LENGTH.' ALSO MVN FBO WAS CONTACTED AND THEY WERE EXPECTING US. UPON REACHING MVN WE CONTACTED UNICOM. WE WERE GIVEN WINDS (SW 5-10) AND RWY CLOSURE INFO, WHICH WE UNDERSTOOD TO BE RWY 33-15. AT THIS TIME, WE WERE DOWNWIND LEG TO RWY 23-5, AND I COMMENTED TO THE F/O THAT I WAS GLAD THAT THE LONG RWY (6400') WAS NOT CLOSED. WE LANDED ON RWY 23 AND TURNED OFF THE RWY AT THE SECOND EXIT FROM THE END W/O MUCH USE OF THE BRAKES. INSIDE THE FBO, WE WERE TOLD THAT I'D LANDED ON THE TXWY. I SAID THAT WAS NOT TRUE, BECAUSE I LANDED BTWN WHITE LIGHTS. THEN I WAS INFORMED THAT THE 5-23 RWY WAS CLOSED, AND THE TXWY WAS RESTRIPED AND WHITE LIGHTS INSTALLED IN PLACE OF THE BLUE LIGHTS. ALSO THEY TOLD ME THE LENGTH WAS 3600'. FORTUNATELY, MY TKOF WT WAS 20000#, AND I COULD JUST LEGALLY USE 3600' FOR TKOF. I TRIED TO CONVEY TO THE UNICOM OPERATOR THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE LNDG AT MVN WERE INFORMED THAT THE RWY IS ONLY 3600'. THE FOLLOWING LACK OF COM COULD HAVE CAUSED A $2 MILLION JET AND CREW TO CRASH THROUGH THE BARRICADES AT THE END OF THE TXWY DURING LNDG, OR TO BE GNDED BECAUSE OF LACK OF RWY DISTANCE AVAILABLE FOR TKOF. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: DISPATCHER HAD NOTAM RE: RWY CLOSURE, BUT FAILED TO GIVE TO RPTR. WHEN DISPATCH CALLED FBO, NO MENTION OF RWYS OR CHANGE IN LIGHTING WAS MENTIONED. POOR COM ON PART OF UNICOM OPERATOR AS WELL. RWY REOPENED FOLLOWING MONTH. CLOSURE WAS FOR MAINT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.