Narrative:

We landed on runway 02; oog. Tower was closed for the night. We were following another 757. After landing we slowed and were looking downfield where the upwind numbers of runway 02 there looked to be equipment located on taxiway a. It was difficult to see as the lighting was pointing towards landing aircraft on runway 02. There's no mention of any equipment working at the approach end of runway 20; nor was there a NOTAM issued concerning maintenance at the above location. I had previously helped tower (8-10 months earlier) when the runway lights were out and they asked us to taxi down runway 02 to report which lights were in fact out. They had us exit on runway 05 that evening as the runway was not illuminated and we were unwilling to taxi full length. After we exited runway 02 via runway 05/23 we taxied to the gate. We returned to the airport the following evening and the operation supervisor approached us and told us that the airport manager would like to speak to us about our exit plan from the previous evening. I spoke to the manager and told him that we were not able to see taxiway a due to the excessive lighting pointing at the landing aircraft and that I had previously exited via runway 05/23 with tower instructions. He then quoted that there is an 80000 pound limit on that runway and that the runway was closed. I told him that I had used it before and that we cross runway 05/23 regardless twice; once on landing roll-out and the other time on taxiway a under normal operation. He asked again if I knew that 05/23 was closed; which I said I did know this and that we cross closed runways regularly; as we would do on landing roll-out and taxiing on runway a. I received an expanded copy of oog rules of operation; which we do not carry and a copy of the NOTAM of runway 05/23 closure. The airport manager that I spoke with did not seem understand my point of his concern of 05/23 being closed; then why do we cross it twice during every landing and taxi to the terminal. Nor did he seem concerned that there was no mention of men and equipment on the approach end of runway 20 and that the lighting was pointed in the direction of the landing aircraft. Had I not utilized runway 05/23 for a tower instructed exit previously I would have not exited and would have taxied full length runway 02/20 and investigated to see if taxiway a was usable or not. There is a note at the bottom of our airport page stating that jets heavier than 80;000 are not to use runway 05/23 for exiting 02/20 that I was not aware of. And I was only using my knowledge of what instructions I have received previously.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757-200 CAPT TAKES UMBRAGE AT OOG ARPT MGR'S ATTEMPTS TO REDRESS HIS USE OF RWY 05; RESTR TO 80000 LBS; TO EXIT RWY 02 AFTER LNDG AT NIGHT WITH THE TOWER CLOSED.

Narrative: WE LANDED ON RWY 02; OOG. TOWER WAS CLOSED FOR THE NIGHT. WE WERE FOLLOWING ANOTHER 757. AFTER LNDG WE SLOWED AND WERE LOOKING DOWNFIELD WHERE THE UPWIND NUMBERS OF RWY 02 THERE LOOKED TO BE EQUIPMENT LOCATED ON TXWY A. IT WAS DIFFICULT TO SEE AS THE LIGHTING WAS POINTING TOWARDS LNDG ACFT ON RWY 02. THERE'S NO MENTION OF ANY EQUIPMENT WORKING AT THE APCH END OF RWY 20; NOR WAS THERE A NOTAM ISSUED CONCERNING MAINT AT THE ABOVE LOCATION. I HAD PREVIOUSLY HELPED TOWER (8-10 MONTHS EARLIER) WHEN THE RWY LIGHTS WERE OUT AND THEY ASKED US TO TAXI DOWN RWY 02 TO RPT WHICH LIGHTS WERE IN FACT OUT. THEY HAD US EXIT ON RWY 05 THAT EVENING AS THE RWY WAS NOT ILLUMINATED AND WE WERE UNWILLING TO TAXI FULL LENGTH. AFTER WE EXITED RWY 02 VIA RWY 05/23 WE TAXIED TO THE GATE. WE RETURNED TO THE ARPT THE FOLLOWING EVENING AND THE OP SUPVR APCHED US AND TOLD US THAT THE ARPT MANAGER WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO US ABOUT OUR EXIT PLAN FROM THE PREVIOUS EVENING. I SPOKE TO THE MANAGER AND TOLD HIM THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO SEE TXWY A DUE TO THE EXCESSIVE LIGHTING POINTING AT THE LNDG ACFT AND THAT I HAD PREVIOUSLY EXITED VIA RWY 05/23 WITH TOWER INSTRUCTIONS. HE THEN QUOTED THAT THERE IS AN 80000 LB LIMIT ON THAT RWY AND THAT THE RWY WAS CLOSED. I TOLD HIM THAT I HAD USED IT BEFORE AND THAT WE CROSS RWY 05/23 REGARDLESS TWICE; ONCE ON LNDG ROLL-OUT AND THE OTHER TIME ON TXWY A UNDER NORMAL OPERATION. HE ASKED AGAIN IF I KNEW THAT 05/23 WAS CLOSED; WHICH I SAID I DID KNOW THIS AND THAT WE CROSS CLOSED RWYS REGULARLY; AS WE WOULD DO ON LNDG ROLL-OUT AND TAXIING ON RUNWAY A. I RECEIVED AN EXPANDED COPY OF OOG RULES OF OPERATION; WHICH WE DO NOT CARRY AND A COPY OF THE NOTAM OF RWY 05/23 CLOSURE. THE ARPT MANAGER THAT I SPOKE WITH DID NOT SEEM UNDERSTAND MY POINT OF HIS CONCERN OF 05/23 BEING CLOSED; THEN WHY DO WE CROSS IT TWICE DURING EVERY LNDG AND TAXI TO THE TERMINAL. NOR DID HE SEEM CONCERNED THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF MEN AND EQUIPMENT ON THE APCH END OF RWY 20 AND THAT THE LIGHTING WAS POINTED IN THE DIRECTION OF THE LNDG ACFT. HAD I NOT UTILIZED RWY 05/23 FOR A TOWER INSTRUCTED EXIT PREVIOUSLY I WOULD HAVE NOT EXITED AND WOULD HAVE TAXIED FULL LENGTH RWY 02/20 AND INVESTIGATED TO SEE IF TXWY A WAS USABLE OR NOT. THERE IS A NOTE AT THE BOTTOM OF OUR ARPT PAGE STATING THAT JETS HEAVIER THAN 80;000 ARE NOT TO USE RWY 05/23 FOR EXITING 02/20 THAT I WAS NOT AWARE OF. AND I WAS ONLY USING MY KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT INSTRUCTIONS I HAVE RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY.

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.