AN ACR MLG CREW DID THE NATURAL THING. THEY MADE THE FIRST TURNOFF OF RWY 9 AT TPA; ONLY TO FIND THAT THEY WERE ON A WT RESTR TXWY.

Narrative

ATIS TOLD OF RWY 36L ILS/VISUAL APCH IN USE WITH GUSTING WINDS OUT OF THE E. UPON VECTORS TO DOWNWIND; APCH ADVISED A RWY CHANGE TO RWY 9 AND STATED THAT A NEW ATIS WAS ON. FLC BRIEFED A RWY 9 APCH AS WE WERE BEING VECTORED ACROSS FINAL FOR A R DOWNWIND TO RWY 9. APCH AND LNDG WERE UNEVENTFUL. CAPT TAXIED L OFF OF RWY 9 ONTO TXWY N; AND MADE A L ONTO TXWY N. AS I CONTACTED GND CTL; GND INFORMED US THAT THE PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE TXWY WE WERE ON WAS NOT STRESSED FOR OUR ACFT. HE THEN GAVE US ADDITIONAL TAXI INSTRUCTIONS TO TXWY H AND TO CONTINUE TO OUR GATE. APCH; TWR AND GND CTL DID NOT TELL US TO EXPECT A R TURNOFF. IF IT WAS TOLD TO US BY TWR ON ROLLOUT; WE DID NOT HEAR OR REPLY TO THIS. THEY STATED IT WAS ON THE NEW ATIS. WE DID NOT OBTAIN NEW ATIS DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS OF A NEW APCH AND WE KNEW THE WX WAS STILL SUITABLE FOR OUR LNDG. RESTR TXWY BEARING DATA WAS NOT ON NOTAM OR COMMERCIAL 20-9 PAGE OR ON INITIAL ATIS 'ROMEO.' TELECON WITH TPA ATCT REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: A TELECON WITH THE TPA ATCT REVEALED TXWY N NOT DESIGNED FOR B727 TYPE ACFT AND THAT THERE ARE CLRNC PROBS FOR TRANSPORT TYPE ACFT. THE USE OF RWY 9 IS VERY RARE. TXWY S IS PROPERLY STRESSED FOR TRANSPORT TYPE ACFT. THE CALLEE AGREES THAT THERE SHOULD BE A NOTATION ON THE COMMERCIAL ARPT PAGE AS WELL AS ON THE GOV ARPT PAGES REGARDING THE USE OF TXWYS N1 AND N. THE RPTR WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR A CALLBACK. A TELECON WITH THE COMMERCIAL PREPARER OF APCH CHARTS FOUND THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THEIR FILES REGARDING A WT/SIZE RESTR FOR TXWY N. HIS COMPANY WILL LOOK INTO THE PROB.