Can You Do A Low Approach On Closed Airport?

G

Garavar

Pre-Flight
Joined
Oct 16, 2021
Messages
79
Display Name
Display name:
Garavar
I know you can do an approach on a closed runway, as an example when you are circling to land. But if the whole airport is closed by NOTAM from X time to Y time can you do a low approach during the time it's closed?

Not closed for noise restrictions, closed because it's middle of nowhere.
 
I suppose it depends on the class of airspace would you be flying in, your altitude, cloud clearance, and visibility. And whether it’s sparsely populated. It’s like flying someplace where there’s no airport, but there’s still a class of airspace.

Edit - but if the airport is still open for rotorcraft, which can happen if all the runways are closed, that would be different -then it’s still an airport where aircraft can operate.
 
Last edited:
If you are requesting ATC for a practice instrument approach VFR or IFR to a closed runway or airport expect to get the no baby no.
 
Actually the FAA has no prohibition on (safely) landing on a closed airport. ATC just tells you you’re at your own risk and leaves it up to the local authority. Now if there is some airspace restrictions above you have a bigger problem.
 
It's an interesting question, because the 91.119 altitude limitations apply "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing". If a runway or airport is closed, then you shouldn't be planning to land there, and therefore does the 91.119 exception still apply? If not, then you'd have to maintain one of the three minimum altitudes (1000 above obstacles, 500 above surface, or 500 from people/structures/etc.), depending on how "congested" the airport environment is.
 
RussR said:
It's an interesting question, because the 91.119 altitude limitations apply "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing". If a runway or airport is closed, then you shouldn't be planning to land there, and therefore does the 91.119 exception still apply? If not, then you'd have to maintain one of the three minimum altitudes (1000 above obstacles, 500 above surface, or 500 from people/structures/etc.), depending on how "congested" the airport environment is.
Click to expand...
you raise a good point. There is case law indicating that if the choice is not appropriate the activity loses it "necessary for takeoff or landing" status. In one of them a pilot was dinged for a low approach at an airport. Did the low approach on a taxiway and broke the 500' rule.

Temporary closures are interesting, one of our area airports was closed for a month for runway work. We did a practice approach but made sure we planned the missed to keep 500+ feet away from the trucks and workers and announced our intentions and awareness of the closure on CTAF in case they were listening in.
 
Clip4 said:
If you are requesting ATC for a practice instrument approach VFR or IFR to a closed runway or airport expect to get the no baby no.
Click to expand...
I did exactly that a Grissom ARB recently, except for the “no” part. All runways have been closed since late June, but Approach is still open. You can practice into there all day long.
 
You may want to know why it is closed before doing a "low approach". Our local airport was closed last week to support the County Fair on the airfield. Cars driving on the runway for access to park in the infield and grass landing area. So with that crowd, flight below 500ft AGL would be very ill advised, and probably flight below 1000ft AGL not advised due to the size of the crowds and obstructions from the rides.
 
flyingron said:
Actually the FAA has no prohibition on (safely) landing on a closed airport. ATC just tells you you’re at your own risk . . .
Click to expand...
I always loved that warning - as if every landing everywhere else isn't at my own risk. :)
 
You will probably generate many noise complaints.
 
When the St Paul airport was under water a few times back in the 1990s, we were told by the feds that we couldn’t legally do practice approaches there. I don’t know that anybody got busted over it, but they were pretty adamant that we couldn’t use those approaches.
OneCharlieTango said:
I did exactly that a Grissom ARB recently, except for the “no” part. All runways have been closed since late June, but Approach is still open. You can practice into there all day long.
Click to expand...
Controllers will frequently authorize illegal activity, so I wouldn’t base my answer on that experience.
 
Keep in mind the recent high profile case of a pilot getting in trouble with the FAA for his low approach over the "intent" to land or not.
 
Clip4 said:
If you are requesting ATC for a practice instrument approach VFR or IFR to a closed runway or airport expect to get the no baby no.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this.

A couple decades ago on my IFR checkride the DPE had me set up to try. When we switched to tower, the controller lost his mind. Didn't stop screaming till we got out of his airspace and changed frequencies.

The 91.119 point is good too, plus, if an airport was closed I wouldn't trust any airport based nav aids.
 
RussR said:
It's an interesting question, because the 91.119 altitude limitations apply "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing". If a runway or airport is closed, then you shouldn't be planning to land there, and therefore does the 91.119 exception still apply? If not, then you'd have to maintain one of the three minimum altitudes (1000 above obstacles, 500 above surface, or 500 from people/structures/etc.), depending on how "congested" the airport environment is.
Click to expand...
Could you not say the same for every practice approach where you have no intention to land?
 
Kritchlow said:
Could you not say the same for every practice approach where you have no intention to land?
Click to expand...
You could but the FAA says,

"the takeoff and landing exception to § 91.119 applies equally to all practice approaches, including repeated 'touch and go,' 'stop and go,' and 'low approach' operations ..." Id. We would like to emphasize that the NTSB has also applied the § 91.119 takeoff or landing exception to touch and go landings and other practice maneuvers." 2009 Anderson Interpretation citing an earlier one.​
 
midlifeflyer said:
You could but the FAA says,

"the takeoff and landing exception to § 91.119 applies equally to all practice approaches, including repeated 'touch and go,' 'stop and go,' and 'low approach' operations ..." Id. We would like to emphasize that the NTSB has also applied the § 91.119 takeoff or landing exception to touch and go landings and other practice maneuvers." 2009 Anderson Interpretation citing an earlier one.​
Click to expand...
By the same token, one can do a practice approach to a closed runway.
 
When in doubt just pull the breakers for the transponder and ADSB ... :biggrin:

*** kidding ***
 
So what is the risk (punishment-wise) of actually landing on a runway with a big Yellow X on it?
I recently flew to an airport that was reporting fuel prices starting with a 4 so I made a beeline for it.

I saw the runway was closed and flew 20 miles away to pay for fuel starting with a 6.
I heard a guy land at the closed runway without a care. In that moment I thought, maybe I should have just landed there and saved a few bucks.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
So what is the risk (punishment-wise) of actually landing on a runway with a big Yellow X on it?
I recently flew to an airport that was reporting fuel prices starting with a 4 so I made a beeline for it.

I saw the runway was closed and flew 20 miles away to pay for fuel starting with a 6.
I heard a guy land at the closed runway without a care. In that moment I thought, maybe I should have just landed there and saved a few bucks.
Click to expand...
I think it used to be a bigger deal, until a Senator did it. That reset the precedent. Now they say you are at your own risk.

As an airport manager I really dislike that approach, because you as a pilot circling overhead have no idea why the runway is closed. There could be power cables strung across the runway. There could be a sinkhole developed under the runway. There could be a single person walking the runway for survey or other purposes that you can't see. We don't go through all the effort of hauling the X's out for nothing.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
So what is the risk (punishment-wise) of actually landing on a runway with a big Yellow X on it?
Click to expand...
About two years ago one of my former students called to say he had landed on a closed runway, and what should he do? Airport employees had confronted him and wrote down his tail number. I told him to call the airport manager and explain it wasn't intentional. And I advised him to be contrite when the FSDO called.

They did call and required him to log an hour of instruction on flight planning, with particular attention to NOTAMS, have it documented by the CFI, and to copy that entry in his logbook and forward it to them.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
They did call and required him to log an hour of instruction on flight planning, with particular attention to NOTAMS, have it documented by the CFI, and to copy that entry in his logbook and forward it to them.
Click to expand...
Well handled by the FSDO. Sounds like common sense adults running the show there. Airport manager should have been more sensible too.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I think it used to be a bigger deal, until a Senator did it. That reset the precedent. Now they say you are at your own risk.

As an airport manager I really dislike that approach, because you as a pilot circling overhead have no idea why the runway is closed. There could be power cables strung across the runway. There could be a sinkhole developed under the runway. There could be a single person walking the runway for survey or other purposes that you can't see. We don't go through all the effort of hauling the X's out for nothing.
Click to expand...
What's the Senator story??
 
I think one issue would be with your insurance company if something happened when you landed on a closed runway.
 
midwestpa24 said:
www.avweb.com

FAA Investigating Senator Inhofe's Closed Runway Landing

The FAA Wednesday confirmed it is investigating an incident involving senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) who, on November 21, landed a Cessna 340 on an occupied closed runway at Port Isabel-Cameron County Airport, Texas, without causing injury.
www.avweb.com www.avweb.com
Click to expand...
Interesting fella. The article gives the month and day but not the year. Did that happen before or after he authored the Pilots Bill of Rights?
 
luvflyin said:
Interesting fella. The article gives the month and day but not the year. Did that happen before or after he authored the Pilots Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...
From the date on the article, I believe it was 2010.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top