Narrative:

En route from charleston, wv, to huntington wv, a 20 min flight. Commuter was informed the 30/12 runway lights at huntington were inoperative. Local sunset was about XX35 local and first notification of NOTAM was while airborne at about XY20 local. Crew elected to hold pending the sorting of available information and options. Available information was relayed via ground personnel to company flight followers. Specific questions relayed to company were: with runway lights inoperative and VASI's working, is a landing authorized? And with runway lights inoperative, is takeoff authorized. Pending the answers and while in the hold, PIC initiated a review of the operations manual to determine exact wording or airport night requirements. Prior to PIC finding exact wording answers to the above questions were relayed to flight as 'yes.' flight landed at XY45 and departed at XY55. Though there was airport lighting and approach lighting, while aircraft landed and departed, the runway lights for runway 30/12 were notamed out. Subsequent review of operations manual and far 135.229 revealed PIC's infraction of regulations. Subsequent conversation with company flight followers revealed breakdown in communication resulting in crew getting incorrect information. My 'problem' would have been prevented if I had confirmed company's answers by completing the review of the operations manual that was initiated. The PIC is responsible for knowing operations manual and FARS. When operations manual requirements reflect a specific regulation, the operations manual working would best be as close as possible to the regulation's wording. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states his company has researched and investigated as they felt there was much confusion in communication and understanding of the regulations. Company has instituted procedures in training to help eliminate further problems. Reporter felt the hold would give time for clarification from ground personnel, as he was researching the operations manual. Feels his failing was in not knowing the regulations better. Even so, company and reporter have not been able to get a true definition of 'boundary' or 'runway marker lights.' reporter could clearly see reference lights to locate runway, had VASI and MALSR functioning. That is why he felt ok with ground personnel response. The ground personnel however are not dispatchers, they are 'flight followers.' they have no liability for their decisions as a dispatcher does. Nowhere has reporter been able to find a true definition of 'boundary' lights, nor has analyst. Unsuccessful at contacting FAA airports personnel for clarification.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER LANDS WITH RWY LIGHTS INOP. THEN DEPARTS AS WELL.

Narrative: ENRTE FROM CHARLESTON, WV, TO HUNTINGTON WV, A 20 MIN FLT. COMMUTER WAS INFORMED THE 30/12 RWY LIGHTS AT HUNTINGTON WERE INOP. LCL SUNSET WAS ABOUT XX35 LCL AND FIRST NOTIFICATION OF NOTAM WAS WHILE AIRBORNE AT ABOUT XY20 LCL. CREW ELECTED TO HOLD PENDING THE SORTING OF AVAILABLE INFO AND OPTIONS. AVAILABLE INFO WAS RELAYED VIA GND PERSONNEL TO COMPANY FLT FOLLOWERS. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS RELAYED TO COMPANY WERE: WITH RWY LIGHTS INOP AND VASI'S WORKING, IS A LNDG AUTHORIZED? AND WITH RWY LIGHTS INOP, IS TKOF AUTHORIZED. PENDING THE ANSWERS AND WHILE IN THE HOLD, PIC INITIATED A REVIEW OF THE OPS MANUAL TO DETERMINE EXACT WORDING OR ARPT NIGHT REQUIREMENTS. PRIOR TO PIC FINDING EXACT WORDING ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS WERE RELAYED TO FLT AS 'YES.' FLT LANDED AT XY45 AND DEPARTED AT XY55. THOUGH THERE WAS ARPT LIGHTING AND APCH LIGHTING, WHILE ACFT LANDED AND DEPARTED, THE RWY LIGHTS FOR RWY 30/12 WERE NOTAMED OUT. SUBSEQUENT REVIEW OF OPS MANUAL AND FAR 135.229 REVEALED PIC'S INFRACTION OF REGS. SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION WITH COMPANY FLT FOLLOWERS REVEALED BREAKDOWN IN COM RESULTING IN CREW GETTING INCORRECT INFO. MY 'PROBLEM' WOULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF I HAD CONFIRMED COMPANY'S ANSWERS BY COMPLETING THE REVIEW OF THE OPS MANUAL THAT WAS INITIATED. THE PIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING OPS MANUAL AND FARS. WHEN OPS MANUAL REQUIREMENTS REFLECT A SPECIFIC REG, THE OPS MANUAL WORKING WOULD BEST BE AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE REG'S WORDING. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES HIS COMPANY HAS RESEARCHED AND INVESTIGATED AS THEY FELT THERE WAS MUCH CONFUSION IN COM AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE REGS. COMPANY HAS INSTITUTED PROCS IN TRAINING TO HELP ELIMINATE FURTHER PROBLEMS. RPTR FELT THE HOLD WOULD GIVE TIME FOR CLARIFICATION FROM GND PERSONNEL, AS HE WAS RESEARCHING THE OPS MANUAL. FEELS HIS FAILING WAS IN NOT KNOWING THE REGS BETTER. EVEN SO, COMPANY AND RPTR HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET A TRUE DEFINITION OF 'BOUNDARY' OR 'RWY MARKER LIGHTS.' RPTR COULD CLRLY SEE REF LIGHTS TO LOCATE RWY, HAD VASI AND MALSR FUNCTIONING. THAT IS WHY HE FELT OK WITH GND PERSONNEL RESPONSE. THE GND PERSONNEL HOWEVER ARE NOT DISPATCHERS, THEY ARE 'FLT FOLLOWERS.' THEY HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR THEIR DECISIONS AS A DISPATCHER DOES. NOWHERE HAS RPTR BEEN ABLE TO FIND A TRUE DEFINITION OF 'BOUNDARY' LIGHTS, NOR HAS ANALYST. UNSUCCESSFUL AT CONTACTING FAA ARPTS PERSONNEL FOR CLARIFICATION.

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.