Narrative:

During morning dispatch, read NOTAM about ena runway lights OTS. NOTAM read 'ena runway 1/19 north 5300 runway lights OTS.' looked for regulation specifying what or how much lights may be operational. Could not find one. Dispatcher and both crew members (both check airmen) did not feel it would be an unsafe operation. We flew down to kenai and observed that the east side from taxiway B to the end, taxiway C, were OTS. Full length on west side and from taxiway a to taxiway B on east side were operational. We landed on runway 1 with 30 KT headwind and turned off at taxiway B. We did 2 trips on this morning and did not feel this to be unsafe at all. Since that time our chief pilot has questioned us as to whether this was legal or not. He is operating on the premise that if it is not written, you cannot do it, instead of the premise if it doesn't say you can't, then you can as long as it is considered safe. Supplemental information from acn 362965: both pilots, the director of training, the chief pilots (both part 135 and part 121) and myself looked for a regulation that said what percentage or the number of runway lights that had to be operational for night operations. None of us found anything that said during night operations the lit portion of the runway was the effective length. As it stands now, there still is no definite answer on the legality of it (and specifically no regulation stating that clearly).

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR DISPATCHER AND FLC DISCUSS THE LEGALITY OF OPERATING A PART 121 FLT TO ENA, AK, WHERE RWY 1 HAS LOST A PART OF THE RWY LIGHTING. THIS WAS A NIGHT OP, PRIOR TO DAWN. FLT OPERATES AND LANDS ON PORTION OF RWY WITH OPERATING LIGHTS.

Narrative: DURING MORNING DISPATCH, READ NOTAM ABOUT ENA RWY LIGHTS OTS. NOTAM READ 'ENA RWY 1/19 N 5300 RWY LIGHTS OTS.' LOOKED FOR REG SPECIFYING WHAT OR HOW MUCH LIGHTS MAY BE OPERATIONAL. COULD NOT FIND ONE. DISPATCHER AND BOTH CREW MEMBERS (BOTH CHK AIRMEN) DID NOT FEEL IT WOULD BE AN UNSAFE OP. WE FLEW DOWN TO KENAI AND OBSERVED THAT THE E SIDE FROM TXWY B TO THE END, TXWY C, WERE OTS. FULL LENGTH ON W SIDE AND FROM TXWY A TO TXWY B ON E SIDE WERE OPERATIONAL. WE LANDED ON RWY 1 WITH 30 KT HEADWIND AND TURNED OFF AT TXWY B. WE DID 2 TRIPS ON THIS MORNING AND DID NOT FEEL THIS TO BE UNSAFE AT ALL. SINCE THAT TIME OUR CHIEF PLT HAS QUESTIONED US AS TO WHETHER THIS WAS LEGAL OR NOT. HE IS OPERATING ON THE PREMISE THAT IF IT IS NOT WRITTEN, YOU CANNOT DO IT, INSTEAD OF THE PREMISE IF IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN'T, THEN YOU CAN AS LONG AS IT IS CONSIDERED SAFE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 362965: BOTH PLTS, THE DIRECTOR OF TRAINING, THE CHIEF PLTS (BOTH PART 135 AND PART 121) AND MYSELF LOOKED FOR A REG THAT SAID WHAT PERCENTAGE OR THE NUMBER OF RWY LIGHTS THAT HAD TO BE OPERATIONAL FOR NIGHT OPS. NONE OF US FOUND ANYTHING THAT SAID DURING NIGHT OPS THE LIT PORTION OF THE RWY WAS THE EFFECTIVE LENGTH. AS IT STANDS NOW, THERE STILL IS NO DEFINITE ANSWER ON THE LEGALITY OF IT (AND SPECIFICALLY NO REG STATING THAT CLRLY).

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.