Henry VIII
RAT 5 and Oleo, this is the standard way to build the NOTAM. One day a doc is issued to inform about the starting of such a kind of work on an apt, later a new doc is issued to inform about the closure of the work. It always happened and it always will happen in that way, no more no less.
I don't
think that's what Oleo was saying. What they were saying,
I think, from reading their post carefully, is that there has been a NOTAM out since last summer stating that the main runway was out of use and the taxiway was available for landing.
Then, when the runway was available again, the NOTAM was pulled or at least the part about the main runway not being in use and the taxiway to be used, was removed.
Regardless of whether or not
...this is the standard way to build the NOTAM...
it's not exactly fail safe, and it's not a robust NOTAM if this is indeed the case.
You have a runway that has been out of commission for months. The only way that people know it is back in service is the lack of text on a NOTAM that previously said it is not to be used.
That is not safe!
How many incidents have you seen, read or heard about which were caused by a combination of many little factors?
You must have heard the anecdotal tales of pilots thinking they see 3 greens when they do a gear check when in fact it's 3 reds - i.e. expectation of seeing something sometimes overrides what is actually there.
If the taxiway had been in use for months, don't you think that it would have been better to have a positive instruction via NOTAM i.e. saying something along the lines of 'Runway XYZ is fully serviceable, Taxiway ABC is no longer to be used for landing".
The chances are that this crew were regulars into CAG - which instead of being in their favour because they know th eairport, actualy worked against them.