Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CYHU.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower CYHU
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Please note that this submission is late however the PIC submitted a report and I am not sure if I have to submit a report as well. On a flight to CYHU the following incident happened. On having completed the departure we were given a complete route change. The whole flight up until the landing was uneventful. At approximately 90 miles to landing; I listened to the ATIS which had the NOTAMs which was in our flight pack. On having reviewed the NOTAMs briefly we were aware of the construction at the departure end of the Runway 06L reducing the landing distance available to 5000 ft. However we misunderstood the following NOTAM.NORTH SIDE 75ft RWY 06L/24R FULL LENGTH CLOSEDSOUTH SIDE AVBL ACFT WINGSPAN MORE THAN 78FT 48HR PN (Prior Notice)We were cleared for the RNAV Approach Runway 06L. PF was the PIC and I was PM. He mentioned he would do the prescribed Bombardier crosswind landing technique. We lined up with the centerline of the runway and made the approach referencing the RNAV indications. We were visual for the whole approach and could see the Departure end of the runway construction clearly. When tower called us on final; they asked if we were aware of the NOTAMs for which we said yes as we understood the shortening of the runway. I asked to just confirm that it was the construction work at the end of the runway they said yes and that we should expect to do a 180 on the runway and backtrack. Just prior to 500 ft we were given a wind check of 010/17G25. All the before landing checks were completed and the aircraft was fully configured and secure and the approach was stable. As we touched down on what was the old centerline we recognized portable lights on the centerline which was still present however bisected with a solid white line. The two left main gear tires hit the portable runway edge lights causing both tires to blow. When we realized they were portable lights we brought the aircraft right of the old centerline and brought the aircraft to a stop. We informed ATC we had hit something and that we were coming to a stop on the runway. The PIC ordered the shutdown checklist and after we shutdown he opened the door with the fire extinguisher at hand to check that there was no fire which there was not.When we were cleared for the approach it was evident of the shortening of the runway as mentioned. However in the 11 years of being in aviation; I have never witnessed or been aware of a runway being closed down its length. Some of the biggest causal factors was mixed demarcation with the original marking of the runway still perfectly present and the old touch down markings being perfectly visible as well as the old center line which was not removed but bisected with a solid line up its length. No crosses demarcated the left half of the runway was closed and the portable lights due to them having black sidewalls were not visible against the black/grey asphalt. Recommendations:1) Do not close a runway down its length. Close a runway by shortening it and not by reducing its width as is standard practice in most of the world. If it is to be closed down its length then a new centerline should be painted on the new useable area suitable for landing and takeoff.2) If half the runway width is closed there should be painted chevrons or crosses on that portion which is not fit to land on or takeoff.3) All old runway markings should be scrubbed if this practice is to be used as it leads to dual information bias.4) The NOTAM was poorly written and was ambiguous and when construction; such as this work; is being conducted it should have a diagram inserted into the reference pages of the Jeppesen such as is the case with the construction work being done in Melbourne; Australia. It is a good example of a schematic of the construction work.5) If portable lights are on the old centerline they should be NOTAMed as such as they are a non-fixed item on the runway6) Portable lights should be a more discernible color.




Synopsis: Corporate jet First Officer reported their aircraft blew the two left main gear tires when they hit the portable runway lights that were marking the new left edge of runway 6L at CYHU due to the closure of the northern side of the runway shown on a NOTAM. The old touchdown zone markings were still visible.