Narrative:

ATIS told of runway 36L ILS/visual approach in use with gusting winds out of the east. Upon vectors to downwind, approach advised a runway change to runway 9 and stated that a new ATIS was on. Flight crew briefed a runway 9 approach as we were being vectored across final for a right downwind to runway 9. Approach and landing were uneventful. Captain taxied left off of runway 9 onto taxiway north, and made a left onto taxiway north. As I contacted ground control, ground informed us that the particular portion of the taxiway we were on was not stressed for our aircraft. He then gave us additional taxi instructions to taxiway H and to continue to our gate. Approach, tower and ground control did not tell us to expect a right turnoff. If it was told to us by tower on rollout, we did not hear or reply to this. They stated it was on the new ATIS. We did not obtain new ATIS due to time constraints of a new approach and we knew the WX was still suitable for our landing. Restr taxiway bearing data was not on NOTAM or commercial 20-9 page or on initial ATIS 'romeo.' telecon with tpa ATCT revealed the following information: a telecon with the tpa ATCT revealed taxiway north not designed for B727 type aircraft and that there are clearance problems for transport type aircraft. The use of runway 9 is very rare. Taxiway south is properly stressed for transport type aircraft. The callee agrees that there should be a notation on the commercial airport page as well as on the government airport pages regarding the use of txwys N1 and north. The reporter was not available for a callback. A telecon with the commercial preparer of approach charts found that there is nothing in their files regarding a weight/size restr for taxiway north. His company will look into the problem.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR MLG CREW DID THE NATURAL THING. THEY MADE THE FIRST TURNOFF OF RWY 9 AT TPA, ONLY TO FIND THAT THEY WERE ON A WT RESTR TXWY.

Narrative: ATIS TOLD OF RWY 36L ILS/VISUAL APCH IN USE WITH GUSTING WINDS OUT OF THE E. UPON VECTORS TO DOWNWIND, APCH ADVISED A RWY CHANGE TO RWY 9 AND STATED THAT A NEW ATIS WAS ON. FLC BRIEFED A RWY 9 APCH AS WE WERE BEING VECTORED ACROSS FINAL FOR A R DOWNWIND TO RWY 9. APCH AND LNDG WERE UNEVENTFUL. CAPT TAXIED L OFF OF RWY 9 ONTO TXWY N, AND MADE A L ONTO TXWY N. AS I CONTACTED GND CTL, GND INFORMED US THAT THE PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE TXWY WE WERE ON WAS NOT STRESSED FOR OUR ACFT. HE THEN GAVE US ADDITIONAL TAXI INSTRUCTIONS TO TXWY H AND TO CONTINUE TO OUR GATE. APCH, TWR AND GND CTL DID NOT TELL US TO EXPECT A R TURNOFF. IF IT WAS TOLD TO US BY TWR ON ROLLOUT, WE DID NOT HEAR OR REPLY TO THIS. THEY STATED IT WAS ON THE NEW ATIS. WE DID NOT OBTAIN NEW ATIS DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS OF A NEW APCH AND WE KNEW THE WX WAS STILL SUITABLE FOR OUR LNDG. RESTR TXWY BEARING DATA WAS NOT ON NOTAM OR COMMERCIAL 20-9 PAGE OR ON INITIAL ATIS 'ROMEO.' TELECON WITH TPA ATCT REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: A TELECON WITH THE TPA ATCT REVEALED TXWY N NOT DESIGNED FOR B727 TYPE ACFT AND THAT THERE ARE CLRNC PROBS FOR TRANSPORT TYPE ACFT. THE USE OF RWY 9 IS VERY RARE. TXWY S IS PROPERLY STRESSED FOR TRANSPORT TYPE ACFT. THE CALLEE AGREES THAT THERE SHOULD BE A NOTATION ON THE COMMERCIAL ARPT PAGE AS WELL AS ON THE GOV ARPT PAGES REGARDING THE USE OF TXWYS N1 AND N. THE RPTR WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR A CALLBACK. A TELECON WITH THE COMMERCIAL PREPARER OF APCH CHARTS FOUND THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THEIR FILES REGARDING A WT/SIZE RESTR FOR TXWY N. HIS COMPANY WILL LOOK INTO THE PROB.

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.