Narrative:

We had passed through ktul earlier the same morning. Since prevailing winds were from the south at about 15 KTS we had used our usual runway (18L) for landing. To expedite operations, we had used runway 26 for departure. Upon returning to ktul, ATIS advised that runway 18L was closed and that the tul VORTAC was still OTS. Since the VORTAC was OTS, vectors to the ILS 18R were being used to provide positioning for let- downs. Ceilings were ragged at the 2500 ft AGL level and visibility was greater than 10 mi. We were vectored to the final approach fix (kroak intersection for runway 18R) at 2500 ft MSL. With the airport in sight prior to reaching the final approach fix, we were cleared for a visual approach to runway 18R, other traffic was on vectors to runway 26L since I had never landed on runway 18R in air carrier operations, I checked the airport diagram to verify its dimensions. I found it to be larger than 2 other airports which we regularly serve. Being satisfied that it was more than adequate for our operation, I thought no more about using runway 18R. While calculating data for departure, we found that our performance manuals did not have data for takeoff or for landing on runway 18R. Further, I could not find any data limiting runway 18R usage because of structural weight limits. Since the runway is larger than others (at similar elevations) which we regularly use, and since the runway is not weight limited, I believe our use of it was safe, although I do not have performance data to support that contention.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: UNAUTH RWY OP WHEN MLG LANDS ON A RWY BUT CREW HAS NO PERFORMANCE DATA FOR THAT RWY.

Narrative: WE HAD PASSED THROUGH KTUL EARLIER THE SAME MORNING. SINCE PREVAILING WINDS WERE FROM THE S AT ABOUT 15 KTS WE HAD USED OUR USUAL RWY (18L) FOR LNDG. TO EXPEDITE OPS, WE HAD USED RWY 26 FOR DEP. UPON RETURNING TO KTUL, ATIS ADVISED THAT RWY 18L WAS CLOSED AND THAT THE TUL VORTAC WAS STILL OTS. SINCE THE VORTAC WAS OTS, VECTORS TO THE ILS 18R WERE BEING USED TO PROVIDE POSITIONING FOR LET- DOWNS. CEILINGS WERE RAGGED AT THE 2500 FT AGL LEVEL AND VISIBILITY WAS GREATER THAN 10 MI. WE WERE VECTORED TO THE FINAL APCH FIX (KROAK INTXN FOR RWY 18R) AT 2500 FT MSL. WITH THE ARPT IN SIGHT PRIOR TO REACHING THE FINAL APCH FIX, WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 18R, OTHER TFC WAS ON VECTORS TO RWY 26L SINCE I HAD NEVER LANDED ON RWY 18R IN ACR OPS, I CHKED THE ARPT DIAGRAM TO VERIFY ITS DIMENSIONS. I FOUND IT TO BE LARGER THAN 2 OTHER ARPTS WHICH WE REGULARLY SERVE. BEING SATISFIED THAT IT WAS MORE THAN ADEQUATE FOR OUR OP, I THOUGHT NO MORE ABOUT USING RWY 18R. WHILE CALCULATING DATA FOR DEP, WE FOUND THAT OUR PERFORMANCE MANUALS DID NOT HAVE DATA FOR TKOF OR FOR LNDG ON RWY 18R. FURTHER, I COULD NOT FIND ANY DATA LIMITING RWY 18R USAGE BECAUSE OF STRUCTURAL WT LIMITS. SINCE THE RWY IS LARGER THAN OTHERS (AT SIMILAR ELEVATIONS) WHICH WE REGULARLY USE, AND SINCE THE RWY IS NOT WT LIMITED, I BELIEVE OUR USE OF IT WAS SAFE, ALTHOUGH I DO NOT HAVE PERFORMANCE DATA TO SUPPORT THAT CONTENTION.

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.