Narrative:

I was PF for the flight. Prior to departure; while reviewing tps for takeoff; noticed TAA07-050 for runway 7/25 at mzbz. It stated 6900 ft available for takeoff and landing at mzbz. Reviewed weight and balance; it listed runways 7 or 25 as ok up to maximum landing weight. During cruise WX wind reports indicated that runway 07 would be in use. While reviewing charts and NOTAMS; airport diagram showed a total runway length of 7100 ft; with 6900 ft available for landing; ok up to maximum landing weight. Company field NOTAMS showed no runway restrictions at all. Prior to descent ACARS WX report showed wind now favoring runway 25 (no ATIS available). Briefed VOR DME 25; re-checked wb data; ok up to maximum landing weight on runway 25. WX at mzbz was about 700 broken; 2RA. During approach noticed TCAS traffic abeam airport about 900 ft below us. Broke out at about 700 ft AGL; runway in sight; but wet; and we looked for VFR traffic. I noted that the FMC computed glide path appeared high; and runway looked narrow. Landed in the touchdown zone. Taxied to the gate; nothing said by ATC about our landing. During taxi out; we were cleared to back taxi into position and hold on runway 25. At approximately 2000 ft from the end the controller said; 'full length of runway not available.' we looked out and saw a faint threshold marking and arrows; that we didn't notice while landing. We confirmed with the tower that the length available was the 6900 ft as stated on tps. They confirmed it was and we took off. After takeoff we looked over all the data again and figured that the runway was actually about 8000 ft now with an 1100 ft displaced threshold; so we may have landed on the closed portion. Advised dispatch that the airport diagram; field NOTAMS and NOTAMS did not reflect the correct runway length. I believe the event occurred because of poor airport pages and NOTAM problems. There was nothing on the airport diagram; airport pages; or field NOTAMS about the runway length change. They all indicated a 7100 ft runway. The tps showed a shortened runway but only by 200 ft. There is no ATIS at mzbz and ATC never mentioned a displaced threshold. Everything we had been looking at indicated a 7100 ft runway; shortened to 6900 ft. Neither pilot had been to mzbz recently. Contributing were: 1) TCAS VFR traffic. 2) poor runway markings in wet conditions. 3) trying to sort out why FMC appear high while watching traffic.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR FLT CREW REPORTS CONFUSION OVER RWY LENGTH AVAILABLE LANDING AT MZBZ.

Narrative: I WAS PF FOR THE FLIGHT. PRIOR TO DEPARTURE; WHILE REVIEWING TPS FOR TAKEOFF; NOTICED TAA07-050 FOR RWY 7/25 AT MZBZ. IT STATED 6900 FT AVAILABLE FOR TAKEOFF AND LANDING AT MZBZ. REVIEWED WEIGHT AND BALANCE; IT LISTED RWYS 7 OR 25 AS OK UP TO MAX LANDING WEIGHT. DURING CRUISE WX WIND REPORTS INDICATED THAT RWY 07 WOULD BE IN USE. WHILE REVIEWING CHARTS AND NOTAMS; AIRPORT DIAGRAM SHOWED A TOTAL RUNWAY LENGTH OF 7100 FT; WITH 6900 FT AVAILABLE FOR LANDING; OK UP TO MAX LANDING WEIGHT. COMPANY FIELD NOTAMS SHOWED NO RUNWAY RESTRICTIONS AT ALL. PRIOR TO DESCENT ACARS WX REPORT SHOWED WIND NOW FAVORING RWY 25 (NO ATIS AVAILABLE). BRIEFED VOR DME 25; RE-CHECKED WB DATA; OK UP TO MAX LANDING WEIGHT ON RWY 25. WX AT MZBZ WAS ABOUT 700 BKN; 2RA. DURING APPROACH NOTICED TCAS TRAFFIC ABEAM AIRPORT ABOUT 900 FT BELOW US. BROKE OUT AT ABOUT 700 FT AGL; RUNWAY IN SIGHT; BUT WET; AND WE LOOKED FOR VFR TRAFFIC. I NOTED THAT THE FMC COMPUTED GLIDE PATH APPEARED HIGH; AND RUNWAY LOOKED NARROW. LANDED IN THE TOUCHDOWN ZONE. TAXIED TO THE GATE; NOTHING SAID BY ATC ABOUT OUR LANDING. DURING TAXI OUT; WE WERE CLEARED TO BACK TAXI INTO POSITION AND HOLD ON RWY 25. AT APPROX 2000 FT FROM THE END THE CONTROLLER SAID; 'FULL LENGTH OF RUNWAY NOT AVAILABLE.' WE LOOKED OUT AND SAW A FAINT THRESHOLD MARKING AND ARROWS; THAT WE DIDN'T NOTICE WHILE LANDING. WE CONFIRMED WITH THE TOWER THAT THE LENGTH AVAILABLE WAS THE 6900 FT AS STATED ON TPS. THEY CONFIRMED IT WAS AND WE TOOK OFF. AFTER TAKEOFF WE LOOKED OVER ALL THE DATA AGAIN AND FIGURED THAT THE RUNWAY WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT 8000 FT NOW WITH AN 1100 FT DISPLACED THRESHOLD; SO WE MAY HAVE LANDED ON THE CLOSED PORTION. ADVISED DISPATCH THAT THE AIRPORT DIAGRAM; FIELD NOTAMS AND NOTAMS DID NOT REFLECT THE CORRECT RUNWAY LENGTH. I BELIEVE THE EVENT OCCURRED BECAUSE OF POOR AIRPORT PAGES AND NOTAM PROBLEMS. THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE AIRPORT DIAGRAM; AIRPORT PAGES; OR FIELD NOTAMS ABOUT THE RUNWAY LENGTH CHANGE. THEY ALL INDICATED A 7100 FT RUNWAY. THE TPS SHOWED A SHORTENED RUNWAY BUT ONLY BY 200 FT. THERE IS NO ATIS AT MZBZ AND ATC NEVER MENTIONED A DISPLACED THRESHOLD. EVERYTHING WE HAD BEEN LOOKING AT INDICATED A 7100 FT RUNWAY; SHORTENED TO 6900 FT. NEITHER PILOT HAD BEEN TO MZBZ RECENTLY. CONTRIBUTING WERE: 1) TCAS VFR TRAFFIC. 2) POOR RUNWAY MARKINGS IN WET CONDITIONS. 3) TRYING TO SORT OUT WHY FMC APPEAR HIGH WHILE WATCHING TFC.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.