Narrative:

In mkg we were given a taxi clearance of 'taxi to runway 14 via 36.' runway 36 is not depicted on our airport layout page but can be located because it is positioned at the edge of the ramp where we park our aircraft. On the airport page for mkg it is listed as a possible taxiway with no designator and only X's on the pavement. While taxiing to 14 we were told to hold short for landing traffic. The traffic landed well before we came to the hold short lines for runway 14. We were both confused as to which line was the hold short line for runway 14 as there were two hold short lines on the pavement in close proximity to each other. The lines were at angles to one another around a curved portion of the pavement which made it even more confusing. We unintentionally crossed the hold short line for runway 14 thinking it was the hold short for runways 18/36 and we were taxiing clear of that runway to hold short for runway 14. When questioned by ATC we apologized and stated that it was a confusing situation at that end of the runway. He stated that is was clearly depicted on the chart. It is not depicted at all on our charts and isn't even labeled as a usable runway on our charts. It is listed as a closed runway on our charts and an undesignated taxiway. I did not state this to the controller as he was clearing us to take off at that time. We apologized again and accepted the takeoff clearance. The event occurred due to confusion of the runway markings; airport map page; and information provided to us by ATC on the part of the flight crew. We stated to one another that the runway markings seemed confusing because the hold short lines would have the thresholds of the two runways overlapping each other. The displaced threshold for runway 14 and the markings for the hold short and markings for runway 18/36 did not look right in our minds as to which set of hold short lines were the correct set to use to hold short of runway 14. As first officer I was acting as the pilot non-flying on the ground at the time of the incident. As a result I was also preoccupied with running checklists and informing the flight attendant of our immediate departure. It seems that mkg operates the airport in a manner opposed to what is stated on our mkg airport diagram. Our airport diagram for mkg shows runway 18/36 as undesignated taxiway with only 'X' markings. It seems that ATC operates runway 18/36 as a viable runway when our airport map page states the exact opposite. Having both runway markings and a set of hold short lines for a runway that is stated on our chart as closed is terribly confusing. Also; if they choose to have an intersection designed in that manner; there should be a runway incursion hotspot circle depicted on the chart to indicate a problem area; or an area of potential confusion.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that at the time the taxi clearance was issued; they were close enough to the 'taxiway' to see the runway markings for runway 36. Otherwise even the taxi instructions would have been a mystery.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR FLT CREW INADVERTENTLY CROSSED A HOLD SHORT LINE WHILE TAXIING ON A RWY WHICH IS IDENTIFIED AS A CLOSED RWY ON THEIR ARPT DIAGRAM. THE RWY IS NOT CLOSED.

Narrative: IN MKG WE WERE GIVEN A TAXI CLEARANCE OF 'TAXI TO RWY 14 VIA 36.' RWY 36 IS NOT DEPICTED ON OUR AIRPORT LAYOUT PAGE BUT CAN BE LOCATED BECAUSE IT IS POSITIONED AT THE EDGE OF THE RAMP WHERE WE PARK OUR AIRCRAFT. ON THE ARPT PAGE FOR MKG IT IS LISTED AS A POSSIBLE TAXIWAY WITH NO DESIGNATOR AND ONLY X'S ON THE PAVEMENT. WHILE TAXIING TO 14 WE WERE TOLD TO HOLD SHORT FOR LANDING TRAFFIC. THE TRAFFIC LANDED WELL BEFORE WE CAME TO THE HOLD SHORT LINES FOR RWY 14. WE WERE BOTH CONFUSED AS TO WHICH LINE WAS THE HOLD SHORT LINE FOR RWY 14 AS THERE WERE TWO HOLD SHORT LINES ON THE PAVEMENT IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER. THE LINES WERE AT ANGLES TO ONE ANOTHER AROUND A CURVED PORTION OF THE PAVEMENT WHICH MADE IT EVEN MORE CONFUSING. WE UNINTENTIONALLY CROSSED THE HOLD SHORT LINE FOR RWY 14 THINKING IT WAS THE HOLD SHORT FOR RWYS 18/36 AND WE WERE TAXIING CLEAR OF THAT RWY TO HOLD SHORT FOR RWY 14. WHEN QUESTIONED BY ATC WE APOLOGIZED AND STATED THAT IT WAS A CONFUSING SITUATION AT THAT END OF THE RWY. HE STATED THAT IS WAS CLEARLY DEPICTED ON THE CHART. IT IS NOT DEPICTED AT ALL ON OUR CHARTS AND ISN'T EVEN LABELED AS A USABLE RWY ON OUR CHARTS. IT IS LISTED AS A CLOSED RWY ON OUR CHARTS AND AN UNDESIGNATED TAXIWAY. I DID NOT STATE THIS TO THE CONTROLLER AS HE WAS CLEARING US TO TAKE OFF AT THAT TIME. WE APOLOGIZED AGAIN AND ACCEPTED THE TAKEOFF CLEARANCE. THE EVENT OCCURRED DUE TO CONFUSION OF THE RWY MARKINGS; AIRPORT MAP PAGE; AND INFORMATION PROVIDED TO US BY ATC ON THE PART OF THE FLIGHT CREW. WE STATED TO ONE ANOTHER THAT THE RWY MARKINGS SEEMED CONFUSING BECAUSE THE HOLD SHORT LINES WOULD HAVE THE THRESHOLDS OF THE TWO RWYS OVERLAPPING EACH OTHER. THE DISPLACED THRESHOLD FOR RWY 14 AND THE MARKINGS FOR THE HOLD SHORT AND MARKINGS FOR RWY 18/36 DID NOT LOOK RIGHT IN OUR MINDS AS TO WHICH SET OF HOLD SHORT LINES WERE THE CORRECT SET TO USE TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 14. AS FIRST OFFICER I WAS ACTING AS THE PILOT NON-FLYING ON THE GROUND AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. AS A RESULT I WAS ALSO PREOCCUPIED WITH RUNNING CHECKLISTS AND INFORMING THE FLIGHT ATTENDANT OF OUR IMMEDIATE DEPARTURE. IT SEEMS THAT MKG OPERATES THE AIRPORT IN A MANNER OPPOSED TO WHAT IS STATED ON OUR MKG ARPT DIAGRAM. OUR AIRPORT DIAGRAM FOR MKG SHOWS RWY 18/36 AS UNDESIGNATED TAXIWAY WITH ONLY 'X' MARKINGS. IT SEEMS THAT ATC OPERATES RWY 18/36 AS A VIABLE RWY WHEN OUR AIRPORT MAP PAGE STATES THE EXACT OPPOSITE. HAVING BOTH RWY MARKINGS AND A SET OF HOLD SHORT LINES FOR A RWY THAT IS STATED ON OUR CHART AS CLOSED IS TERRIBLY CONFUSING. ALSO; IF THEY CHOOSE TO HAVE AN INTERSECTION DESIGNED IN THAT MANNER; THERE SHOULD BE A RWY INCURSION HOTSPOT CIRCLE DEPICTED ON THE CHART TO INDICATE A PROBLEM AREA; OR AN AREA OF POTENTIAL CONFUSION.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED THAT AT THE TIME THE TAXI CLRNC WAS ISSUED; THEY WERE CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE 'TAXIWAY' TO SEE THE RWY MARKINGS FOR RWY 36. OTHERWISE EVEN THE TAXI INSTRUCTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN A MYSTERY.

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.