Narrative:

Flight rsw-mco pushed back from gate at rsw ft meyers with ATIS information that stated runway 24 as the active for takeoff. While starting engines, we noticed an aircraft landing on runway 06. Prior to aircraft movement, we asked ground control, which runway was active for takeoff? He replied that it was our choice. We elected to use runway 24, due to taxi clearance, the first officer asked the ground controller if a 'back taxi,' was required in order to use the full length of runway. Ground control replied that back taxi was approved from intersection taxiway A-6, but 'don't cross the white line,' this was confusing because a white-line was painted right at our intersecting taxiway, A-6. I taxied across this line a few ft (40-50) while asking ground control, 'which white line?', as he said that it was 200 ft down the runway. I then turned the aircraft around with it sitting on the threshold. The ensuing takeoff was normal, with power applied only after the threshold was well behind us. Recommendations: the runway is under construction by the chart publisher. The chart dated jul/xx/94 shows an 8400 ft runway, but the NOTAMS state the runway is cutback 1000 ft with 9400 ft available. There is no way to associate the new thresholds with the intersecting txwys. The air carrier arms manual and 'awabs' do not authorize an intersection takeoff. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter was called back to clarify several points within his report. The white line he cited as crossing was the only white line, indicating the threshold of the runway 24. The controller was confusing the crew with his terminology and remark of '200 ft down the runway,' which was not helpful at all. The reporter then turned around for the takeoff. He was further confused because there was no information from the air carrier for the takeoff from A6 taxiway. This was only a legal point so far as 'no intersection takeoffs allowed.' the runway length from A6 to the end was the same as the old original 8400 ft as the end of runway 24 was extended 1000 ft, even though the chart doesn't display that fact. So, even though runway 24 was 'cut back 1000 ft,' the length was the same. The back taxi on 24 was required as the parallel taxiway was closed to the old end of runway 24. The reporter stated that there were 'faded' chevrons on the closed portion of runway 24 and he couldn't see them until he was right on top of them. He has turned the report into his company for review but would like to see a new, updated chart printed. All in all, he said it was very confusing to a crew not familiar with the airport.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AERO CHART PRESENTATION, PUB DEFICIENCY AND CLOSED TXWY DUE TO ARPT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY LEADS ACR PIC INTO STATE OF CONFUSION.

Narrative: FLT RSW-MCO PUSHED BACK FROM GATE AT RSW FT MEYERS WITH ATIS INFO THAT STATED RWY 24 AS THE ACTIVE FOR TKOF. WHILE STARTING ENGS, WE NOTICED AN ACFT LNDG ON RWY 06. PRIOR TO ACFT MOVEMENT, WE ASKED GND CTL, WHICH RWY WAS ACTIVE FOR TKOF? HE REPLIED THAT IT WAS OUR CHOICE. WE ELECTED TO USE RWY 24, DUE TO TAXI CLRNC, THE FO ASKED THE GND CTLR IF A 'BACK TAXI,' WAS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO USE THE FULL LENGTH OF RWY. GND CTL REPLIED THAT BACK TAXI WAS APPROVED FROM INTXN TXWY A-6, BUT 'DON'T CROSS THE WHITE LINE,' THIS WAS CONFUSING BECAUSE A WHITE-LINE WAS PAINTED R AT OUR INTERSECTING TXWY, A-6. I TAXIED ACROSS THIS LINE A FEW FT (40-50) WHILE ASKING GND CTL, 'WHICH WHITE LINE?', AS HE SAID THAT IT WAS 200 FT DOWN THE RWY. I THEN TURNED THE ACFT AROUND WITH IT SITTING ON THE THRESHOLD. THE ENSUING TKOF WAS NORMAL, WITH PWR APPLIED ONLY AFTER THE THRESHOLD WAS WELL BEHIND US. RECOMMENDATIONS: THE RWY IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY THE CHART PUBLISHER. THE CHART DATED JUL/XX/94 SHOWS AN 8400 FT RWY, BUT THE NOTAMS STATE THE RWY IS CUTBACK 1000 FT WITH 9400 FT AVAILABLE. THERE IS NO WAY TO ASSOCIATE THE NEW THRESHOLDS WITH THE INTERSECTING TXWYS. THE ACR ARMS MANUAL AND 'AWABS' DO NOT AUTHORIZE AN INTXN TKOF. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR WAS CALLED BACK TO CLARIFY SEVERAL POINTS WITHIN HIS RPT. THE WHITE LINE HE CITED AS XING WAS THE ONLY WHITE LINE, INDICATING THE THRESHOLD OF THE RWY 24. THE CTLR WAS CONFUSING THE CREW WITH HIS TERMINOLOGY AND REMARK OF '200 FT DOWN THE RWY,' WHICH WAS NOT HELPFUL AT ALL. THE RPTR THEN TURNED AROUND FOR THE TKOF. HE WAS FURTHER CONFUSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO INFO FROM THE ACR FOR THE TKOF FROM A6 TXWY. THIS WAS ONLY A LEGAL POINT SO FAR AS 'NO INTXN TKOFS ALLOWED.' THE RWY LENGTH FROM A6 TO THE END WAS THE SAME AS THE OLD ORIGINAL 8400 FT AS THE END OF RWY 24 WAS EXTENDED 1000 FT, EVEN THOUGH THE CHART DOESN'T DISPLAY THAT FACT. SO, EVEN THOUGH RWY 24 WAS 'CUT BACK 1000 FT,' THE LENGTH WAS THE SAME. THE BACK TAXI ON 24 WAS REQUIRED AS THE PARALLEL TXWY WAS CLOSED TO THE OLD END OF RWY 24. THE RPTR STATED THAT THERE WERE 'FADED' CHEVRONS ON THE CLOSED PORTION OF RWY 24 AND HE COULDN'T SEE THEM UNTIL HE WAS RIGHT ON TOP OF THEM. HE HAS TURNED THE RPT INTO HIS COMPANY FOR REVIEW BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE A NEW, UPDATED CHART PRINTED. ALL IN ALL, HE SAID IT WAS VERY CONFUSING TO A CREW NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE ARPT.

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.