Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LFT.Airport, LA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LFT
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was assigned as pilot in command to fly a trip to LFT and then back to RDU. The day prior to the trip I was teaching a Learjet recurrent ground school and the two students in the class happened to be the Director of Operations and the Chief Pilot of the company. During the class I received a text from my Dispatch asking; 'will you be able to do 8 passengers on tomorrow's flight?' I knew that Lafayette only had one long runway and that it was going to be a hot day (100 degrees F) so I replied; 'checking NOTAMS' because I knew that if the long runway was for some reason closed then the trip would not be possible. At the time I was teaching a class so I thought it would be a good idea to use this as a training exercise for aircraft performance. I went and got the weight and balance and performance charts out of the aircraft that I would be flying. We pulled up the NOTAMS in class and found that there was a partial closure for Runway 4R/22L -- LFT 0/006 LFT Runway 4R/22L northeast 1;433 CLSD WEF (effective from) 12XXXXXXXX. I showed the NOTAM to our Director of Operations and told him that I interpreted that as saying that 1;433 FT of the northeast end of Runway 4R/22L: was closed and he agreed. He also suggested that we call flight service station and try to get more information on the NOTAMS. We called FSS on speaker phone and identified ourselves and we spoke to a briefer and queried him about the NOTAM for Runway 4R/22L and we also asked him for an abbreviated briefing concerning the temperature for the following day. I asked if he could tell us what the actual takeoff distance available was for Runway 4R/22L and he told me that he could not tell us that but he could gave us a number to the LFT Tower and he said that the high for the next day would be around 100 degrees F. We were concerned about the actual takeoff distance because the runway length on the airport diagram is showing that the Runway 4R/22L runway length is 7;651 FT and the NOTAM is saying that 1;433 FT of that is closed; which would only leave you with 6;218 FT remaining. After we got off of phone we then called LFT Control Tower and identified ourselves again and I told him that we would be flying in the next day and that I needed to know the actual takeoff distance available for Runway 4R/22L. He said that it was 6;600 FT. That was good news to me. I asked him if it was 6;600 FT available for 4R and 22L and he said yes but you would have to back taxi from Taxiway L to get the full 6;600 FT on Runway 22L. I told him that was great that I would see them tomorrow. After we got off the phone I was kind of scratching my head because we had come up with 6;218 FT and the Tower was saying that they had 6;600 FT available. If you have 6;600 FT available and 1;433 FT closed you would have an 8;033 FT runway which is not the case when you look at the airport diagram and the NOTAMS. It led me to believe that they must have reopened a portion of the closed section and not changed the NOTAM. My airport diagram was very recent and it still said 4R/22L was 7;651 FT so they obviously haven't added runway to it; right? There us no NOTAM stating that the new runway length for 4R/22L had been increased. The next day when we arrived we landed on Runway 4R so we really didn't have a good picture of what was going on at the approach end of Runway 22L. While we were there; the winds turned around and the airport started landing and departing Runway 22L. When we taxied out we taxied straight out on Taxiway L and held short of Runway 22L. From here we can see the threshold of the runway and we can see that the barricades have been moved back about 500 FT. At this point it is making sense to me that they reopened this 500 FT of runway and that is where they are getting 6;600 FT takeoff distance available from. I am the non flying pilot so I am sitting on the right side and we have to make a left turn and back taxi and I remembered the Tower telling us that we would have to back taxiso everything seemed normal. While sitting on Taxiway L we can see the barricades but really can't tell anything about runway markings painted on the runway. All we know is that the runway is NOTAMed as partially closed and we can see the barricades and we both consider that is where the closure starts and we need every bit of the 6;600 FT available. It wasn't terribly tight but we were going to do flaps 20 takeoff and utilize the entire runway available to us. The Tower comes on the radio and says; 'turn right heading 040 you are cleared for takeoff Runway 22L shortened.' We acknowledged and we back taxi and turn and do a 180 and then the Tower cancels our takeoff clearance and asks us to exit at Taxiway L. We comply. I asked if the Controller would like us to do another 180. We were told to do a 180 and hold short of the runway and to standby for a 'possible pilot deviation.' We queried what the deviation was for and the Controller stated that we had taxied onto a closed portion of the runway. I told the Controller that we understood that they had 6;600 FT available and that we need all of it and wanted to make sure that if we departed from the threshold line that we would have that and the Controller said that we would. The Controller gave us a number to call and then we were re-cleared and this time were told 'remain south of the threshold line.' Why didn't the Controller say that the first time? Apparently we had taxied onto a blast pad/stop way that they had painted on the runway. There were no NOTAMS that there was a temporary blast pad/ stop way installed and there was nothing elevated on the runway. The whole thing looked non-standard in my opinion. Most blast pads/stop ways are inaccessible to aircraft. There are normally threshold lights elevated on the runway. Threshold lights not being present are more common with a displaced threshold. After we arrived at our destination we called the number we had been given and spoke to the Tower Manager. We told them we were in the wrong but we felt like we were misinformed. I told him that if the airport is 7;651 FT and you have 1;433 FT closed; and then you can't possible have 6;600 FT available for takeoff. He told me that our charts were old and that they had added and extra 500 FT to the runway and that if we had up-to-date charts; it would show 8;000 FT. I told him that my airport diagram for LFT is dated for June of this year and it shows 7;651 FT. I asked him if many other aircraft had done the same thing and he said; 'yes; that is a hot spot.' I told him my point of view on the whole thing and asked for his mercy and he stated that it had been turned over to the airport and that they would decide if we would be given a 'Pilot Deviation.' I asked him when I would find out and he stated a week and a half to two weeks but they would not call if they decided not to pursue it. He stated that it was up to the airport because we had to run over a cable to access that part of the runway. My Co-Captain and I neither recall running over any cables. I do recall seeing some cables rolled up on the side of the runway. I know there was a NOTAM that the runway would be fully closed that night and I think they might have already taken them up. He says we could have damaged them. In conclusion; we as pilots were wrong to taxi onto a stop way/blast pad. In our defense I feel that we were misinformed of all the runway changes. How do I believe thuds cold have been avoided? 1) We should have been informed of the runway addition (NOTAM) which would have helped us better understand the available takeoff distance. 2) There should have been a NOTAM for the blast pad they installed. 3) I believe that if that portion of the runway is NOTAMed as 'closed' it should be marked as closed. 4) The Tower should inform all aircraft that are having to back taxi to remain south of the white threshold line.




Synopsis: A pilot back taxied on the closed section of LFT Runway 22L because of confusion about the actual runway length and the lack of runway closure barriers.