Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Distraction
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Airport; Human Factors
After transitioning from an RNAV IMC approach to daytime visual references; stable; on-speed and glide-path; I briefly became distracted by an unexpected appearance of what turned-out to be a paved runway environment prior to the actual threshold. This resulted in a momentary increase in vertical speed outside stable parameters; which was corrected immediately upon verification of the PAPI and touch down zone. Limited lighting equipment in operation; and with that limited intensity of said lighting during daytime. Pavement surface area markings also difficult to discern.  The preceding aircraft made several broadcasts to the controller regarding the lighting availability and intensity. There is limited reference to a displaced threshold nor to any significant extension of such surface area published in either the 10-9 or company pages. Updating this might be considered helpful for pilots to properly frame the runway environment when transitioning from lower-visibility or lower-ceiling conditions.
FO was PF. Flight and approach were normal and paced. We followed another aircraft that asked; maybe 3-4 times; if the 'lights were up' (relevant later) but that they saw the airport @ 1000'. 1000' was stable. Of note; I did not make the 500' call due to the proximity to mins but he did (possibly thinking I forgot it?). At 500' he was stable (sink 800 roughly). Minimums were set at 530' MSL (MDA + 50'; 434' AGL). Weather was worse than reported - right at minimums with rain. FO called 'runway in sight' and proceeded to push the nose over. I saw a sink rate on the VSI of approx 1350'. I immediately called it out to his attention which he then corrected; while getting a 'sink rate'. Since he was correcting and now had the (actual; more on that later) runway in sight; we proceeded to land in the touchdown zone. At the gate the review showed 1498' vertical speed(!).The night before this flight I commuted two legs and spent the night in a hotel. On my commute/hotel stay I reviewed several items and the SYCJ airport plates on Jepp FD. I even pulled up the NOTAMs for the airport so as not to be caught off guard. I cannot overstate how much prep work was done with this. No where in any document did I see information about a deconstructed runway threshold extending from R/W 06 @ SYCJ. On the JeppFD pro AMM 10-9 there is a LARGE blob of red; prior to R/W 06; but no mention what it is. There was mention of 'elevated' threshold lights and cables but nothing to indicate that a large runway threshold was prior to the R/W 06 threshold. This is important because what I believe happened is due to approaching minimums; the FO was 'antsy' to see the runway (as we all are); so he began looking outside. In his haste to 'find' the runway; he saw the deconstructed threshold (there were white X's; albeit degraded; from what I remember; as we got closer). Quite frankly; had he not called it; I most likely would have as well. Due to the weather conditions what one could make out was asphalt that looked like a runway; except we looked very high. He then pushed the nose over in an attempt to 'correct' for his perceived inaccurate vertical guidance occurring from this visual illusion which is what precipitated the increased vertical speed. R/W 06 solely has a pair of REILs and a PAPI...not your traditional ICAO lit approach so no threshold lights or a rabbit delineating the runway.The reason for submitting this report is to bring attention to the large displaced runway threshold in front of R/W 06. During visual conditions; this is immaterial; but due to the weather conditions being literally at minimums this can cause an inadvertent flight path correction. Of interest; I have found online some mention that the runway was expanded roughly 975m (3200') to 10;500. From what I can piece together it's possible the runway was expanded and now is being torn up again (or redone). So if true that (what looks like a displaced threshold) is 3000+' long. Again; in visual conditions that is not an issue...but with rain and low CIGs; it can pose a problem.
Commercial jet flight crew reported confusing runway over-run markings at Cheddi Jagan International Airport in Guyana.