A C550 flight crew inadvertently took off from runway 23 that was notamed closed at shr.

Attributes
ACN	618795
Time
Date	200405
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : shr.airport
State Reference	WY
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : tus.tower
Operator	general aviation : corporate
Make Model Name	Citation II S2/Bravo
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing : roll
Route In Use	approach : traffic pattern
Person 1
Affiliation	company : corporate Other
Function	flight crew : captain other personnel other oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 120 flight time total : 6500 flight time type : 1100
ASRS Report	618795
Person 2
Affiliation	company : corporate
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 120 flight time total : 4500 flight time type : 800
ASRS Report	619535
Events
Anomaly	conflict : ground less severe ground encounters : person ground encounters : fod incursion : runway non adherence : far
Independent Detector	other other : 4
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

On board we had a copy of the NOTAMS for shr, which included the fact that runway 5/23 was closed. We landed on runway 32, taxied to the FBO, and deplaned our passenger. After engine start and completion of the pre-taxi checklist, the PF and myself discussed going to runway 23 for takeoff, since wind and traffic were not an issue. Also, runway 23 is much closer to the FBO than is runway 14/32. We completely forgot about the NOTAM closure of runway 5/23. As we were taxiing out, we announced our intentions to depart on runway 23 on the CTAF 3 or 4 times. There was a C172 turning final for runway 14 (which intersects runway 5/23) and we told him that we would wait. He announced clear of all runways, and we announced our intention to depart on runway 23. Shortly after getting airborne, we noticed cones blocking the west 500 ft (approximately) and beyond that the 'X.' at about the same time, an individual, who we believe was working with some crew at the approach end of runway 32, told us that we had just taken off on a closed runway. He asked us if we had checked the NOTAMS. We told him that there was no 'X' on the approach end of runway 23. He said it was in the grass so that planes could still taxi there. That was the end of our discussion with him. In retrospect, we should have remembered what we had discussed about 15 mins earlier about the closed runway. We didn't! But also, the individual on the radio should have heard our intentions to depart runway 23, but said nothing. The C172 landing before us said nothing. And there were no signs on the departure end of the runway that we could see that indicated that the runway was closed. Supplemental information from acn 619535: after this incident at our safety meeting, we concluded that we were at fault along with the airport manager for not labeling runway 23 closed where we could rapidly see it. So now we pay extra attention and detail to the NOTAM at each airport we travel in our briefing. I think the construction person's intention was to let us know after the fact so that we could get violated.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C550 FLT CREW INADVERTENTLY TOOK OFF FROM RWY 23 THAT WAS NOTAMED CLOSED AT SHR.

Narrative: ON BOARD WE HAD A COPY OF THE NOTAMS FOR SHR, WHICH INCLUDED THE FACT THAT RWY 5/23 WAS CLOSED. WE LANDED ON RWY 32, TAXIED TO THE FBO, AND DEPLANED OUR PAX. AFTER ENG START AND COMPLETION OF THE PRE-TAXI CHKLIST, THE PF AND MYSELF DISCUSSED GOING TO RWY 23 FOR TKOF, SINCE WIND AND TFC WERE NOT AN ISSUE. ALSO, RWY 23 IS MUCH CLOSER TO THE FBO THAN IS RWY 14/32. WE COMPLETELY FORGOT ABOUT THE NOTAM CLOSURE OF RWY 5/23. AS WE WERE TAXIING OUT, WE ANNOUNCED OUR INTENTIONS TO DEPART ON RWY 23 ON THE CTAF 3 OR 4 TIMES. THERE WAS A C172 TURNING FINAL FOR RWY 14 (WHICH INTERSECTS RWY 5/23) AND WE TOLD HIM THAT WE WOULD WAIT. HE ANNOUNCED CLR OF ALL RWYS, AND WE ANNOUNCED OUR INTENTION TO DEPART ON RWY 23. SHORTLY AFTER GETTING AIRBORNE, WE NOTICED CONES BLOCKING THE W 500 FT (APPROX) AND BEYOND THAT THE 'X.' AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME, AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO WE BELIEVE WAS WORKING WITH SOME CREW AT THE APCH END OF RWY 32, TOLD US THAT WE HAD JUST TAKEN OFF ON A CLOSED RWY. HE ASKED US IF WE HAD CHKED THE NOTAMS. WE TOLD HIM THAT THERE WAS NO 'X' ON THE APCH END OF RWY 23. HE SAID IT WAS IN THE GRASS SO THAT PLANES COULD STILL TAXI THERE. THAT WAS THE END OF OUR DISCUSSION WITH HIM. IN RETROSPECT, WE SHOULD HAVE REMEMBERED WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED ABOUT 15 MINS EARLIER ABOUT THE CLOSED RWY. WE DIDN'T! BUT ALSO, THE INDIVIDUAL ON THE RADIO SHOULD HAVE HEARD OUR INTENTIONS TO DEPART RWY 23, BUT SAID NOTHING. THE C172 LNDG BEFORE US SAID NOTHING. AND THERE WERE NO SIGNS ON THE DEP END OF THE RWY THAT WE COULD SEE THAT INDICATED THAT THE RWY WAS CLOSED. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 619535: AFTER THIS INCIDENT AT OUR SAFETY MEETING, WE CONCLUDED THAT WE WERE AT FAULT ALONG WITH THE ARPT MGR FOR NOT LABELING RWY 23 CLOSED WHERE WE COULD RAPIDLY SEE IT. SO NOW WE PAY EXTRA ATTN AND DETAIL TO THE NOTAM AT EACH ARPT WE TRAVEL IN OUR BRIEFING. I THINK THE CONSTRUCTION PERSON'S INTENTION WAS TO LET US KNOW AFTER THE FACT SO THAT WE COULD GET VIOLATED.

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.