Medium large transport taxies onto weight restr taxiway.

Attributes
ACN	313070
Time
Date	199508
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : fwa
State Reference	IN
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : hou
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	F28 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground other : taxi
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 6800 flight time type : 1450
ASRS Report	313070
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Taxied onto a weight restr taxiway. WX was hot and humid at 80 degree F, performance was a factor and the full length of usable runway was most important. The normal runway was closed for construction which was the longest. Being familiar with the airport we did not have the airport diagram page in front of us and when given the other runway we inadvertently taxied to the very end utilizing a short taxiway that was limited to 50000 pounds, 79 ft wingspan. Our aircraft was 77 ft wingspan and slightly over the 50000 pound limit. The displaced threshold was structurally sound for taxi and takeoff. Being distracted by performance and takeoff distance contributed to not looking at airport diagram. Being just over the weight limit posed no safety hazard whatsoever and our wingspan was not a factor. Solution: this is a permanent structure on the airport so why not have a permanent sign stating limits? Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states they fly into this airport frequently and are very familiar with the airport. Thus they did not have the airport diagram on their laps. When runway assignment changed they figured they could manage. Obviously this was not the case since there were weight restrs. They probably should have taxied on taxiway Y5 instead of taxiway Y6.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG TAXIES ONTO WT RESTR TXWY.

Narrative: TAXIED ONTO A WT RESTR TXWY. WX WAS HOT AND HUMID AT 80 DEG F, PERFORMANCE WAS A FACTOR AND THE FULL LENGTH OF USABLE RWY WAS MOST IMPORTANT. THE NORMAL RWY WAS CLOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION WHICH WAS THE LONGEST. BEING FAMILIAR WITH THE ARPT WE DID NOT HAVE THE ARPT DIAGRAM PAGE IN FRONT OF US AND WHEN GIVEN THE OTHER RWY WE INADVERTENTLY TAXIED TO THE VERY END UTILIZING A SHORT TXWY THAT WAS LIMITED TO 50000 LBS, 79 FT WINGSPAN. OUR ACFT WAS 77 FT WINGSPAN AND SLIGHTLY OVER THE 50000 LB LIMIT. THE DISPLACED THRESHOLD WAS STRUCTURALLY SOUND FOR TAXI AND TKOF. BEING DISTRACTED BY PERFORMANCE AND TKOF DISTANCE CONTRIBUTED TO NOT LOOKING AT ARPT DIAGRAM. BEING JUST OVER THE WT LIMIT POSED NO SAFETY HAZARD WHATSOEVER AND OUR WINGSPAN WAS NOT A FACTOR. SOLUTION: THIS IS A PERMANENT STRUCTURE ON THE ARPT SO WHY NOT HAVE A PERMANENT SIGN STATING LIMITS? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THEY FLY INTO THIS ARPT FREQUENTLY AND ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE ARPT. THUS THEY DID NOT HAVE THE ARPT DIAGRAM ON THEIR LAPS. WHEN RWY ASSIGNMENT CHANGED THEY FIGURED THEY COULD MANAGE. OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS NOT THE CASE SINCE THERE WERE WT RESTRS. THEY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE TAXIED ON TXWY Y5 INSTEAD OF TXWY Y6.

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.