Narrative:

Taxi clearance from ground control was to taxi to runway 22. At xa:00 it is completely dark with zero moon illumination. Runway 26 was notamed closed. We taxied out on taxiway a to the taxiway A5 runway 26 hold short and observed an aircraft directly in front of us on runway 22 at the taxiway A5 intersection. Lighting and markings were such that it appeared that we would hold on the closed runway 26. I'm not comfortable with holding across a runway so we held short of runway 26. We called tower and stated; 'we were holding short runway 26.' tower said; 'roger; taxi to hold short runway 22.' as we taxied across runway 26; we found a set of 18 inch high barriers blocking taxiway a to runway 22; the direct route. We then observed hold short markings from taxiway A5 to runway 26 and another set of hold short markings for runway 22; maybe 100 ft away. The next call was; 'aircraft XXXX; runway 22; cleared for takeoff.' we taxied on to runway 22 at taxiway A5 and saw 200 ft of runway available to our right. We were not told to back taxi. The runway was painted; but not with chevrons. It was unclear if that was usable for takeoff or not. Note: I discovered that later lex flts were dispatched with temporary data. The runway had perimeter lights only; no centerline lights; no distance remaining markers; no runway point of intercept markings; no runway end identifier lights; no VASI; and no PAPI. From our viewpoint it looked identical to runway 26 in distance with the exception of the surrounding lights. It just seems like the taxi route should be very different. The diagram page is not to scale and should at least have an exploded view of the taxiway A5 hold short area. While tower calls were concise; they were not helpful enough to resolve the confusion. I have been to other airports where more helpful instructions were issued regarding construction. The bottom line for me is that even knowing about prior events and being vigilant; I still found it confusing to safely get to the correct runway.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated that his main concern was that the airport diagram did not depict the changes or the construction that is present. He indicated that there should be a separate chart; such as they have at larger airports; that show the temporary construction or the temporary taxi rtes and is highlighted or expanded. He felt that although the ground controller did give specific taxi instructions; it is very difficult to discern the correct way to the active runway. He indicated that he has flown out of the airport numerous times; however; with the changes to the taxi rtes; it's very difficult in low light circumstances.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ200 FLT CREW HAS CONCERNS WITH TXWY LIGHTING/MARKINGS FOR RWYS 22/26 AT LEX.

Narrative: TAXI CLRNC FROM GND CTL WAS TO TAXI TO RWY 22. AT XA:00 IT IS COMPLETELY DARK WITH ZERO MOON ILLUMINATION. RWY 26 WAS NOTAMED CLOSED. WE TAXIED OUT ON TXWY A TO THE TXWY A5 RWY 26 HOLD SHORT AND OBSERVED AN ACFT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF US ON RWY 22 AT THE TXWY A5 INTXN. LIGHTING AND MARKINGS WERE SUCH THAT IT APPEARED THAT WE WOULD HOLD ON THE CLOSED RWY 26. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH HOLDING ACROSS A RWY SO WE HELD SHORT OF RWY 26. WE CALLED TWR AND STATED; 'WE WERE HOLDING SHORT RWY 26.' TWR SAID; 'ROGER; TAXI TO HOLD SHORT RWY 22.' AS WE TAXIED ACROSS RWY 26; WE FOUND A SET OF 18 INCH HIGH BARRIERS BLOCKING TXWY A TO RWY 22; THE DIRECT RTE. WE THEN OBSERVED HOLD SHORT MARKINGS FROM TXWY A5 TO RWY 26 AND ANOTHER SET OF HOLD SHORT MARKINGS FOR RWY 22; MAYBE 100 FT AWAY. THE NEXT CALL WAS; 'ACFT XXXX; RWY 22; CLRED FOR TAKEOFF.' WE TAXIED ON TO RWY 22 AT TXWY A5 AND SAW 200 FT OF RWY AVAILABLE TO OUR RIGHT. WE WERE NOT TOLD TO BACK TAXI. THE RWY WAS PAINTED; BUT NOT WITH CHEVRONS. IT WAS UNCLEAR IF THAT WAS USABLE FOR TAKEOFF OR NOT. NOTE: I DISCOVERED THAT LATER LEX FLTS WERE DISPATCHED WITH TEMPORARY DATA. THE RWY HAD PERIMETER LIGHTS ONLY; NO CTRLINE LIGHTS; NO DISTANCE REMAINING MARKERS; NO RWY POINT OF INTERCEPT MARKINGS; NO RWY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS; NO VASI; AND NO PAPI. FROM OUR VIEWPOINT IT LOOKED IDENTICAL TO RWY 26 IN DISTANCE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SURROUNDING LIGHTS. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE TAXI RTE SHOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT. THE DIAGRAM PAGE IS NOT TO SCALE AND SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE AN EXPLODED VIEW OF THE TXWY A5 HOLD SHORT AREA. WHILE TWR CALLS WERE CONCISE; THEY WERE NOT HELPFUL ENOUGH TO RESOLVE THE CONFUSION. I HAVE BEEN TO OTHER ARPTS WHERE MORE HELPFUL INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED REGARDING CONSTRUCTION. THE BOTTOM LINE FOR ME IS THAT EVEN KNOWING ABOUT PRIOR EVENTS AND BEING VIGILANT; I STILL FOUND IT CONFUSING TO SAFELY GET TO THE CORRECT RWY.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THAT HIS MAIN CONCERN WAS THAT THE ARPT DIAGRAM DID NOT DEPICT THE CHANGES OR THE CONSTRUCTION THAT IS PRESENT. HE INDICATED THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SEPARATE CHART; SUCH AS THEY HAVE AT LARGER ARPTS; THAT SHOW THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION OR THE TEMPORARY TAXI RTES AND IS HIGHLIGHTED OR EXPANDED. HE FELT THAT ALTHOUGH THE GND CTLR DID GIVE SPECIFIC TAXI INSTRUCTIONS; IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DISCERN THE CORRECT WAY TO THE ACTIVE RWY. HE INDICATED THAT HE HAS FLOWN OUT OF THE ARPT NUMEROUS TIMES; HOWEVER; WITH THE CHANGES TO THE TAXI RTES; IT'S VERY DIFFICULT IN LOW LIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.