Narrative:

The dispatch release for our flight indicated runway 22 landing data for intersection taxiway A5. I pointed out to the captain and by phone to our dispatcher the taxiway A5 intersection on the airport diagram. The dispatcher agreed taxiway A5 newly depicted didn't agree with the data provided. The dispatcher mentioned he 'didn't have' the new revision airport diagram for runways at lex. We landed at lex without incident. Upon departure from lex; the captain and I noticed the taxi diagram on the new airport diagram was grossly inaccurate. The runway length on the release (full length temporary data) was 6603 ft; 6453 ft from runway 22 to taxiway A5 (not correct). Taxiway A7 was listed as the full lenth taxiway on the airport diagram showing 7003 ft for runway 22. There were no signs indicating taxiway A7. Ground gave instructions only to taxi to runway 22; no mention was made of taxiway A7. Lex ATIS did mention taxiway a closed north of runway 26; however; on the current airport diagram; there was no taxiway a north of runway 26. Full length takeoff from runway 22 requires a 300 to 400 ft back taxi from the taxiway labeled taxiway A7 on the current diagram. We took off from intersection taxiway A7 which apparently gave us 6453 ft to takeoff. We used normal thrust and rotated with approximately 1/3 of the runway remaining (runway distance remaining signs were covered up -- not notamed on our departure release from lex). Talked to a chief pilot and he said he would call dispatch. Talked to an first officer rep (left message). Bottom line: nobody has accurate airport depiction; signage is non existent and temperature data is suspect.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that there is no taxiway sign indicating entry onto taxiway A7. Taxi clearance to runway 22 does not include instructions to runway 22 via taxiway a and taxiway A7. However; the airport ATIS stated 'taxiway a closed north of runway 26' but it did not say that another taxiway; A7; is being used to runway 22 after crossing runway 26. Additionally; the reporter stated that when holding short of runway 22 on taxiway A7; additional runway and stopway are available to the aircraft's right. The reporter is therefore unsure what the actual available runway 22 length is. He does not believe the 7003 ft is accurate and that the actual figure may be around 6700 ft but he is not sure. An additional item was highlighted: there is a known hot spot identified on taxiway a at runway 26. The hot spot is discussed but never added to the airport diagram. The reporter also stated that the runway distance remaining signs on runway 22 have been covered and pilots never know if they are meeting performance requirements or not. This is especially a problem at night.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ700 FO REPORTS THE LEX COMMERCIAL ARPT DESCRIPTION IS INACCURATE; TXWY A7 HAS NO SIGNAGE; THERE ARE NO RWY 22 DISTANCE REMAINING SIGNS; AND A KNOWN HOT SPOT IS NOT IDENTIFIED.

Narrative: THE DISPATCH RELEASE FOR OUR FLT INDICATED RWY 22 LNDG DATA FOR INTXN TXWY A5. I POINTED OUT TO THE CAPT AND BY PHONE TO OUR DISPATCHER THE TXWY A5 INTXN ON THE ARPT DIAGRAM. THE DISPATCHER AGREED TXWY A5 NEWLY DEPICTED DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE DATA PROVIDED. THE DISPATCHER MENTIONED HE 'DIDN'T HAVE' THE NEW REVISION ARPT DIAGRAM FOR RWYS AT LEX. WE LANDED AT LEX WITHOUT INCIDENT. UPON DEPARTURE FROM LEX; THE CAPT AND I NOTICED THE TAXI DIAGRAM ON THE NEW ARPT DIAGRAM WAS GROSSLY INACCURATE. THE RWY LENGTH ON THE RELEASE (FULL LENGTH TEMPORARY DATA) WAS 6603 FT; 6453 FT FROM RWY 22 TO TXWY A5 (NOT CORRECT). TXWY A7 WAS LISTED AS THE FULL LENTH TXWY ON THE ARPT DIAGRAM SHOWING 7003 FT FOR RWY 22. THERE WERE NO SIGNS INDICATING TXWY A7. GND GAVE INSTRUCTIONS ONLY TO TAXI TO RWY 22; NO MENTION WAS MADE OF TXWY A7. LEX ATIS DID MENTION TXWY A CLOSED N OF RWY 26; HOWEVER; ON THE CURRENT ARPT DIAGRAM; THERE WAS NO TXWY A N OF RWY 26. FULL LENGTH TKOF FROM RWY 22 REQUIRES A 300 TO 400 FT BACK TAXI FROM THE TXWY LABELED TXWY A7 ON THE CURRENT DIAGRAM. WE TOOK OFF FROM INTXN TXWY A7 WHICH APPARENTLY GAVE US 6453 FT TO TAKEOFF. WE USED NORMAL THRUST AND ROTATED WITH APPROX 1/3 OF THE RWY REMAINING (RWY DISTANCE REMAINING SIGNS WERE COVERED UP -- NOT NOTAMED ON OUR DEP RELEASE FROM LEX). TALKED TO A CHIEF PLT AND HE SAID HE WOULD CALL DISPATCH. TALKED TO AN FO REP (LEFT MESSAGE). BOTTOM LINE: NOBODY HAS ACCURATE ARPT DEPICTION; SIGNAGE IS NON EXISTENT AND TEMP DATA IS SUSPECT.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THERE IS NO TXWY SIGN INDICATING ENTRY ONTO TXWY A7. TAXI CLRNC TO RWY 22 DOES NOT INCLUDE INSTRUCTIONS TO RWY 22 VIA TXWY A AND TXWY A7. HOWEVER; THE ARPT ATIS STATED 'TXWY A CLOSED N OF RWY 26' BUT IT DID NOT SAY THAT ANOTHER TXWY; A7; IS BEING USED TO RWY 22 AFTER CROSSING RWY 26. ADDITIONALLY; THE RPTR STATED THAT WHEN HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 22 ON TXWY A7; ADDITIONAL RWY AND STOPWAY ARE AVAILABLE TO THE ACFT'S RIGHT. THE RPTR IS THEREFORE UNSURE WHAT THE ACTUAL AVAILABLE RWY 22 LENGTH IS. HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THE 7003 FT IS ACCURATE AND THAT THE ACTUAL FIGURE MAY BE AROUND 6700 FT BUT HE IS NOT SURE. AN ADDITIONAL ITEM WAS HIGHLIGHTED: THERE IS A KNOWN HOT SPOT IDENTIFIED ON TXWY A AT RWY 26. THE HOT SPOT IS DISCUSSED BUT NEVER ADDED TO THE ARPT DIAGRAM. THE RPTR ALSO STATED THAT THE RWY DISTANCE REMAINING SIGNS ON RWY 22 HAVE BEEN COVERED AND PLTS NEVER KNOW IF THEY ARE MEETING PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OR NOT. THIS IS ESPECIALLY A PROB AT NIGHT.

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.