Narrative:

The malone-dufort airport has 2 runways, 5-23 and 14-32. Runway 14-32, the shorter of the two (3245 ft on the approach plate), intersects with runway 5-23 near runway 14-32's northwest end. In the preflight briefing for the flight to this airport, there were 2 distant NOTAMS: runway 5-23 closed, and runway 14 threshold displaced 900 ft, non standard markings. En route a check with flight service confirmed that these 2 NOTAMS remained in effect. In my training and experience, a displaced threshold had always been a line painted on the runway. And the full length always had been available for landing in the opposite direction (in this case, runway 32), unless otherwise stated. Surface winds in the area were reported to be light, out of the northwest. Based on the direction of our approach, we elected the GPS runway 5 approach, with the intention of circling to runway 32. ZBW read us the same 2 NOTAMS we had already received previously. Nearing the airport, we could see heavy equipment -- apparently paving equipment -- parked on runway 5. Accordingly, after circling to runway 32, I made a point of looking up the runway to verify that the intersection was clear for us to roll through. This intersection appeared clear. But we never made it to the intersection. On the rollout after touchdown, the runway 14 'displaced threshold' with the 'non standard markings' suddenly loomed ahead as a three-dimensional obstruction to traffic on runway 32! First there was a length of white material, rolled up like a carpet, stretched across the full 75 ft width of the runway and weighed down with sandbags. Behind that was a set of barriers stretched across the runway, topped with yellow flashers that were not turned on! These markings, some 2300-2400 ft down the runway, had not been noticed on the final approach to or the landing on runway 32. Full braking, then an intentional swerve off the runway onto the grass, saved the day. The outcome was a close call, with no damage or injury. I contacted flight service to have the NOTAM about the 'displaced threshold' with 'non standard markings' corrected to terminology that reflected the actual situation, that neither the first 900 ft of runway 14 nor the last 900 ft of runway 32 was available. They contacted the airport manager to verify the information and my proposed correction was, in fact, made. The new NOTAM: runway 14-32 northwest 900 feet closed. From a previous trip to this airport, I understand the field is managed by someone other than an aviation official. Perhaps this individual could use some remedial training in aviation terminology, not to mention airport safety. And maybe some level of certification should be required, if it isn't already, for anyone authority/authorized to issue airport NOTAMS.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA PLT MAKES EVASIVE MANEUVER AFTER LNDG MAL ARPT DUE TO BARRIER OBSTRUCTIONS ON RWY. PLT DETERMINES ARPT NOTAMS ARE INCOMPLETE.

Narrative: THE MALONE-DUFORT ARPT HAS 2 RWYS, 5-23 AND 14-32. RWY 14-32, THE SHORTER OF THE TWO (3245 FT ON THE APCH PLATE), INTERSECTS WITH RWY 5-23 NEAR RWY 14-32'S NW END. IN THE PREFLT BRIEFING FOR THE FLT TO THIS ARPT, THERE WERE 2 DISTANT NOTAMS: RWY 5-23 CLOSED, AND RWY 14 THRESHOLD DISPLACED 900 FT, NON STANDARD MARKINGS. ENRTE A CHK WITH FLT SVC CONFIRMED THAT THESE 2 NOTAMS REMAINED IN EFFECT. IN MY TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, A DISPLACED THRESHOLD HAD ALWAYS BEEN A LINE PAINTED ON THE RWY. AND THE FULL LENGTH ALWAYS HAD BEEN AVAILABLE FOR LNDG IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION (IN THIS CASE, RWY 32), UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. SURFACE WINDS IN THE AREA WERE RPTED TO BE LIGHT, OUT OF THE NW. BASED ON THE DIRECTION OF OUR APCH, WE ELECTED THE GPS RWY 5 APCH, WITH THE INTENTION OF CIRCLING TO RWY 32. ZBW READ US THE SAME 2 NOTAMS WE HAD ALREADY RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY. NEARING THE ARPT, WE COULD SEE HVY EQUIP -- APPARENTLY PAVING EQUIP -- PARKED ON RWY 5. ACCORDINGLY, AFTER CIRCLING TO RWY 32, I MADE A POINT OF LOOKING UP THE RWY TO VERIFY THAT THE INTXN WAS CLR FOR US TO ROLL THROUGH. THIS INTXN APPEARED CLR. BUT WE NEVER MADE IT TO THE INTXN. ON THE ROLLOUT AFTER TOUCHDOWN, THE RWY 14 'DISPLACED THRESHOLD' WITH THE 'NON STANDARD MARKINGS' SUDDENLY LOOMED AHEAD AS A THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBSTRUCTION TO TFC ON RWY 32! FIRST THERE WAS A LENGTH OF WHITE MATERIAL, ROLLED UP LIKE A CARPET, STRETCHED ACROSS THE FULL 75 FT WIDTH OF THE RWY AND WEIGHED DOWN WITH SANDBAGS. BEHIND THAT WAS A SET OF BARRIERS STRETCHED ACROSS THE RWY, TOPPED WITH YELLOW FLASHERS THAT WERE NOT TURNED ON! THESE MARKINGS, SOME 2300-2400 FT DOWN THE RWY, HAD NOT BEEN NOTICED ON THE FINAL APCH TO OR THE LNDG ON RWY 32. FULL BRAKING, THEN AN INTENTIONAL SWERVE OFF THE RWY ONTO THE GRASS, SAVED THE DAY. THE OUTCOME WAS A CLOSE CALL, WITH NO DAMAGE OR INJURY. I CONTACTED FLT SVC TO HAVE THE NOTAM ABOUT THE 'DISPLACED THRESHOLD' WITH 'NON STANDARD MARKINGS' CORRECTED TO TERMINOLOGY THAT REFLECTED THE ACTUAL SIT, THAT NEITHER THE FIRST 900 FT OF RWY 14 NOR THE LAST 900 FT OF RWY 32 WAS AVAILABLE. THEY CONTACTED THE ARPT MGR TO VERIFY THE INFO AND MY PROPOSED CORRECTION WAS, IN FACT, MADE. THE NEW NOTAM: RWY 14-32 NORTHWEST 900 FEET CLOSED. FROM A PREVIOUS TRIP TO THIS ARPT, I UNDERSTAND THE FIELD IS MANAGED BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN AN AVIATION OFFICIAL. PERHAPS THIS INDIVIDUAL COULD USE SOME REMEDIAL TRAINING IN AVIATION TERMINOLOGY, NOT TO MENTION ARPT SAFETY. AND MAYBE SOME LEVEL OF CERTIFICATION SHOULD BE REQUIRED, IF IT ISN'T ALREADY, FOR ANYONE AUTH TO ISSUE ARPT NOTAMS.

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.