Narrative:

Received taa for runway 7 indicating east 200 ft of the 7100 ft runway was closed due to wip. We discussed the issue during preflight. I was familiar with mzbz and was expecting work in or near the turn bulb at the end of runway 7. During high speed rollout after landing we spotted 2 unlighted lights strung across the runway with approximately 2000 - 2500 ft of runway beyond. As soon as we spotted the lights we applied maximum braking. We stopped with the nosewheel about 10 ft beyond the lights. After discussion with the tower we taxied beyond the lights on the runway to turn around. There were numerous other tire marks indicating we were in good company. We did not hit the lights and the aircraft was inspected. According to the operations agent the runway extension has just been completed. The taa is in error; it should indicate that the east 2000 - 2500 ft is closed and the runway diagram should show the correct runway length. We immediately notified our dispatcher who indicated he would notify operations engineering about the error so the taa can be corrected. Did I mention that this was and IOE and an FAA inspector was on the jumpseat.supplemental information from acn 742158: NOTAM and temporary airport analysis (taa) for mzbz stated; ...'200 ft runway closed/east end'... The page shows 7100 ft of prepared surface following a 194 ft displaced threshold at the approach end of runway 7. We planned for 6900 ft of runway for landing. Visual approach was 8 -10 KTS fast; reference plus 5 at the fence. Touchdown was smooth in the touchdown zone. A little bit longer than normal rollout before nose gear landing; and initially light braking. Heavier braking was called for and was promptly provided. The last third of the runway appeared to be newly surfaced and freshly painted. Approaching what was closer to the last 2000 ft; rather than the last 200 ft; a white stripe running from edge to edge with an unlighted light fixture on each side of the centerline became visible. We managed to stop the airplane with the nose just over the line. Tower told us to taxi ahead; do a 180 and taxi to the mid-field exit. A number of things combined to cause this poorly executed rollout: though there is no information to this effect; the runway appears to be much longer than 7100 ft with much more than 200 ft of the east end closed. The runway end marking that we encountered is subtle and is not located at a position consistent with the description of the runway closure. There were no distance remaining markers. The runway end marking is not visible from the touchdown zone. The newly surfaced; freshly painted runway beyond the runway end marking is visible from the touchdown zone. Our part in this is that we did not aggressively execute the touchdown and ground roll appropriate for a 6900 ft runway. We were baited by the illusion of significant runway remaining until there was inadequate runway remaining. Though there did not appear to be any obstacle or hazard on the runway past the temporary end marking; the potential is obvious. I believe the NOTAM/field report/taa information could be more descriptive to aid in offsetting the visual effect of the runway remaining beyond the end marking.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-800 FLT CREW RPTS DIFFICULTY STOPPING AFTER LNDG AT MZBZ DUE TO LACK OF OBSERVABLE MARKINGS AND LIGHTS FOR SECTION OF RWY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND CURRENTLY CLOSED.

Narrative: RECEIVED TAA FOR RWY 7 INDICATING E 200 FT OF THE 7100 FT RWY WAS CLOSED DUE TO WIP. WE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE DURING PREFLT. I WAS FAMILIAR WITH MZBZ AND WAS EXPECTING WORK IN OR NEAR THE TURN BULB AT THE END OF RWY 7. DURING HIGH SPEED ROLLOUT AFTER LNDG WE SPOTTED 2 UNLIGHTED LIGHTS STRUNG ACROSS THE RWY WITH APPROX 2000 - 2500 FT OF RWY BEYOND. AS SOON AS WE SPOTTED THE LIGHTS WE APPLIED MAX BRAKING. WE STOPPED WITH THE NOSEWHEEL ABOUT 10 FT BEYOND THE LIGHTS. AFTER DISCUSSION WITH THE TWR WE TAXIED BEYOND THE LIGHTS ON THE RWY TO TURN AROUND. THERE WERE NUMEROUS OTHER TIRE MARKS INDICATING WE WERE IN GOOD COMPANY. WE DID NOT HIT THE LIGHTS AND THE ACFT WAS INSPECTED. ACCORDING TO THE OPS AGENT THE RWY EXTENSION HAS JUST BEEN COMPLETED. THE TAA IS IN ERROR; IT SHOULD INDICATE THAT THE E 2000 - 2500 FT IS CLOSED AND THE RWY DIAGRAM SHOULD SHOW THE CORRECT RWY LENGTH. WE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED OUR DISPATCHER WHO INDICATED HE WOULD NOTIFY OPS ENGINEERING ABOUT THE ERROR SO THE TAA CAN BE CORRECTED. DID I MENTION THAT THIS WAS AND IOE AND AN FAA INSPECTOR WAS ON THE JUMPSEAT.SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 742158: NOTAM AND TEMPORARY ARPT ANALYSIS (TAA) FOR MZBZ STATED; ...'200 FT RWY CLOSED/EAST END'... THE PAGE SHOWS 7100 FT OF PREPARED SURFACE FOLLOWING A 194 FT DISPLACED THRESHOLD AT THE APCH END OF RWY 7. WE PLANNED FOR 6900 FT OF RWY FOR LNDG. VISUAL APCH WAS 8 -10 KTS FAST; REF PLUS 5 AT THE FENCE. TOUCHDOWN WAS SMOOTH IN THE TOUCHDOWN ZONE. A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN NORMAL ROLLOUT BEFORE NOSE GEAR LNDG; AND INITIALLY LIGHT BRAKING. HEAVIER BRAKING WAS CALLED FOR AND WAS PROMPTLY PROVIDED. THE LAST THIRD OF THE RWY APPEARED TO BE NEWLY SURFACED AND FRESHLY PAINTED. APCHING WHAT WAS CLOSER TO THE LAST 2000 FT; RATHER THAN THE LAST 200 FT; A WHITE STRIPE RUNNING FROM EDGE TO EDGE WITH AN UNLIGHTED LIGHT FIXTURE ON EACH SIDE OF THE CTRLINE BECAME VISIBLE. WE MANAGED TO STOP THE AIRPLANE WITH THE NOSE JUST OVER THE LINE. TWR TOLD US TO TAXI AHEAD; DO A 180 AND TAXI TO THE MID-FIELD EXIT. A NUMBER OF THINGS COMBINED TO CAUSE THIS POORLY EXECUTED ROLLOUT: THOUGH THERE IS NO INFO TO THIS EFFECT; THE RWY APPEARS TO BE MUCH LONGER THAN 7100 FT WITH MUCH MORE THAN 200 FT OF THE EAST END CLOSED. THE RWY END MARKING THAT WE ENCOUNTERED IS SUBTLE AND IS NOT LOCATED AT A POSITION CONSISTENT WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF THE RWY CLOSURE. THERE WERE NO DISTANCE REMAINING MARKERS. THE RWY END MARKING IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE TOUCHDOWN ZONE. THE NEWLY SURFACED; FRESHLY PAINTED RWY BEYOND THE RWY END MARKING IS VISIBLE FROM THE TOUCHDOWN ZONE. OUR PART IN THIS IS THAT WE DID NOT AGGRESSIVELY EXECUTE THE TOUCHDOWN AND GROUND ROLL APPROPRIATE FOR A 6900 FT RWY. WE WERE BAITED BY THE ILLUSION OF SIGNIFICANT RWY REMAINING UNTIL THERE WAS INADEQUATE RWY REMAINING. THOUGH THERE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY OBSTACLE OR HAZARD ON THE RWY PAST THE TEMPORARY END MARKING; THE POTENTIAL IS OBVIOUS. I BELIEVE THE NOTAM/FIELD RPT/TAA INFO COULD BE MORE DESCRIPTIVE TO AID IN OFFSETTING THE VISUAL EFFECT OF THE RWY REMAINING BEYOND THE END MARKING.

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.