Narrative:

We took off from dtw at XA15Z with a WX package and release with no indication of any NOTAM displacing the threshold of runway 15 at yxu. Arriving at yxu, ATIS was unavailable. We received WX from approach, and we were cleared to land runway 33. Taxiing out for takeoff we received the NOTAM for runway 15, displacing the threshold about 1500 ft. There was still over 6000 ft of usable runway, so we decided to use runway 33 for takeoff. Later on in the day after 3 of our company's aircraft doing the same thing, the 4TH thought about runway analysis and refused to land on it. After checking with dispatch they agreed with him and had another runway opened for him. Me, being new with the company and on line for less than 3 weeks, paired with a new captain who upgraded in my class and on high minimums, took off on runway 33 without runway analysis for the notamed shorter runway. We discovered this later that day when the last aircraft refused to land on that runway and told us about it. We had no indication going up there on our WX dispatch release. ATIS was being changed so we received WX from approach control. On getting the ATIS before taxiing for takeoff we became aware of the NOTAM. I never even correlated the closing of 1500 ft with the requirement of new runway analysis. We took off knowing that 6000 ft would be good. I will now look at WX packages closer and ask about local NOTAMS before landing or taking off and correlating them with runway analysis.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN LTT LANDED AND TOOK OFF ON A RWY OF INSUFFICIENT LEGAL LENGTH.

Narrative: WE TOOK OFF FROM DTW AT XA15Z WITH A WX PACKAGE AND RELEASE WITH NO INDICATION OF ANY NOTAM DISPLACING THE THRESHOLD OF RWY 15 AT YXU. ARRIVING AT YXU, ATIS WAS UNAVAILABLE. WE RECEIVED WX FROM APCH, AND WE WERE CLRED TO LAND RWY 33. TAXIING OUT FOR TKOF WE RECEIVED THE NOTAM FOR RWY 15, DISPLACING THE THRESHOLD ABOUT 1500 FT. THERE WAS STILL OVER 6000 FT OF USABLE RWY, SO WE DECIDED TO USE RWY 33 FOR TKOF. LATER ON IN THE DAY AFTER 3 OF OUR COMPANY'S ACFT DOING THE SAME THING, THE 4TH THOUGHT ABOUT RWY ANALYSIS AND REFUSED TO LAND ON IT. AFTER CHKING WITH DISPATCH THEY AGREED WITH HIM AND HAD ANOTHER RWY OPENED FOR HIM. ME, BEING NEW WITH THE COMPANY AND ON LINE FOR LESS THAN 3 WKS, PAIRED WITH A NEW CAPT WHO UPGRADED IN MY CLASS AND ON HIGH MINIMUMS, TOOK OFF ON RWY 33 WITHOUT RWY ANALYSIS FOR THE NOTAMED SHORTER RWY. WE DISCOVERED THIS LATER THAT DAY WHEN THE LAST ACFT REFUSED TO LAND ON THAT RWY AND TOLD US ABOUT IT. WE HAD NO INDICATION GOING UP THERE ON OUR WX DISPATCH RELEASE. ATIS WAS BEING CHANGED SO WE RECEIVED WX FROM APCH CTL. ON GETTING THE ATIS BEFORE TAXIING FOR TKOF WE BECAME AWARE OF THE NOTAM. I NEVER EVEN CORRELATED THE CLOSING OF 1500 FT WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF NEW RWY ANALYSIS. WE TOOK OFF KNOWING THAT 6000 FT WOULD BE GOOD. I WILL NOW LOOK AT WX PACKAGES CLOSER AND ASK ABOUT LCL NOTAMS BEFORE LNDG OR TAKING OFF AND CORRELATING THEM WITH RWY ANALYSIS.

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.