Narrative:

Chester airport was under construction at the time of occurrence. The north/south runway was closed. The east/west runway had a temporary displaced threshold. The displaced threshold included all of the portion of the east/west runway that is west of the north/south runway and a couple hundred ft east of the north/south runway. I taxied to the intersection of the 2 runways and took off to the east so as to avail myself to more runway. Immediately after my departure a woman representing herself to be some type of airport authority/authorized, approached my colleagues on the ground and said, 'your friend has just lost his license for taking off on a closed runway.' I do not believe her assessment to be correct, but I am not entirely sure. If the temporary displaced threshold was not available for takeoff, I believe a NOTAM to that effect should have been issued. The NOTAMS in effect on that wkend stated that runway 33/15 was closed and that a temporary displaced threshold was in effect for runway 5. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter pilot was contacted primarily because he had forgotten to include his address on the tear sheet. Reporter was very conscientious and says that he is always very careful and plans his flying in detail and would never do something illegal or reckless. Reporter sent report because the FBO operator made threats to reporter's friends about his takeoff. Reporter believes that the woman who made those threats was upset with him because he didn't follow her recommended instructions on how to make the takeoff. Her recommendation was to get a running start on the taxiway prior to the runway, but reporter didn't feel comfortable with that procedure.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA28 PVT PLT TOOK OFF FROM DISPLACED THRESHOLD AND AN FBO PERSON DECLARED THAT RPTR HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTAM BY NOT USING THE DISPLACED THRESHOLD. RPTR PLT FOUND OUT ABOUT THE COMPLAINT AFTER LNDG, BUT NOTHING FURTHER CAME OF IT.

Narrative: CHESTER ARPT WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE TIME OF OCCURRENCE. THE N/S RWY WAS CLOSED. THE E/W RWY HAD A TEMPORARY DISPLACED THRESHOLD. THE DISPLACED THRESHOLD INCLUDED ALL OF THE PORTION OF THE E/W RWY THAT IS W OF THE N/S RWY AND A COUPLE HUNDRED FT E OF THE N/S RWY. I TAXIED TO THE INTXN OF THE 2 RWYS AND TOOK OFF TO THE E SO AS TO AVAIL MYSELF TO MORE RWY. IMMEDIATELY AFTER MY DEP A WOMAN REPRESENTING HERSELF TO BE SOME TYPE OF ARPT AUTH, APCHED MY COLLEAGUES ON THE GND AND SAID, 'YOUR FRIEND HAS JUST LOST HIS LICENSE FOR TAKING OFF ON A CLOSED RWY.' I DO NOT BELIEVE HER ASSESSMENT TO BE CORRECT, BUT I AM NOT ENTIRELY SURE. IF THE TEMPORARY DISPLACED THRESHOLD WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR TKOF, I BELIEVE A NOTAM TO THAT EFFECT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED. THE NOTAMS IN EFFECT ON THAT WKEND STATED THAT RWY 33/15 WAS CLOSED AND THAT A TEMPORARY DISPLACED THRESHOLD WAS IN EFFECT FOR RWY 5. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR PLT WAS CONTACTED PRIMARILY BECAUSE HE HAD FORGOTTEN TO INCLUDE HIS ADDRESS ON THE TEAR SHEET. RPTR WAS VERY CONSCIENTIOUS AND SAYS THAT HE IS ALWAYS VERY CAREFUL AND PLANS HIS FLYING IN DETAIL AND WOULD NEVER DO SOMETHING ILLEGAL OR RECKLESS. RPTR SENT RPT BECAUSE THE FBO OPERATOR MADE THREATS TO RPTR'S FRIENDS ABOUT HIS TKOF. RPTR BELIEVES THAT THE WOMAN WHO MADE THOSE THREATS WAS UPSET WITH HIM BECAUSE HE DIDN'T FOLLOW HER RECOMMENDED INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO MAKE THE TKOF. HER RECOMMENDATION WAS TO GET A RUNNING START ON THE TXWY PRIOR TO THE RWY, BUT RPTR DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT PROC.

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.