Landing at Closed Aiport

If you were one of my students I would rather you just land, [than] try to look up all the info in your afd, ipad, whatever and end up in IMC/dead. You glanced at your sectional, made the call and had a uneventful landing.... GOOD JOB
How would looking up the airport info after landing cause him/her to end up in IMC? :confused:

I think the poster meant to say "than," not "then.". Looking up in the A/FD while still flying is, I think, what they were discouraging.
 
Last edited:
Bingo. If it's not marked with an X, it's not closed.
Don't count on that.

1) There is a local airport that has not had flight operations for years. They do, however, have Flea Markets on the runway every weekend. I have never seen a "X" on the runway, but I have seen dealer stalls. I have also walked that runway and found considerable debris that would make one concerned about a landing, taxi, or take-off.

2) When my friend landed his aircraft and turned it upside-down, the only indication from the air was the little Luscombe on its back and the fire truck. However, anyone listening on the air would have been told that the runway was closed until everything was cleared off. Nevertheless, a few aircraft departed from that runway before then.

3) When flying cross-country, the only indication of a runway being closed at one of our fuel stops was the grading equipment on the runway and the trench cut across it.

There is a difference between an airport being closed and a runway being closed. Even when it is the only runway on the field. Sometimes people don't bother with the "x". Sometimes it blew away.
 
OP here. There is a NOTAM which states the following: "AD closed. Effective Immediately Until Further Notice. Created:12 Aug 14:09 2011"

Since this was apparently closed over a year ago, I would expect this to be reflected on the sectional, but it's not.
In a nonemergency situation, that would make all the difference in the world, as you are responsible for the information in that NOTAM even if your sectional didn't show it closed. The FAA could certainly make a case for a nonemergency landing at a known closed airport being careless/reckless since the reason it was closed might involve serious safety hazards not enunciated in the NOTAM. However, since this was a "condition concerning the safety of an aircraft," it was a valid emergency situation which permitted you to deviate from any relevant rules by landing there.

However, I would not admit to the FAA that you didn't see the NOTAM during your preflight planning, as the later emergency would not excuse you from failing to familiarize yourself with all avaliable information pertinent to the flight prior to the flight as required by 14 CFR 91.103.
 
And see if you can improve your weather knowledge so you're less likely to have this happen again.

Sigh. Let's always jump to the conclusion that something is lacking in the knowledge of the OP.

I remember the first time I flew in any sort of rain. It was probably 7,000 overcast and maybe 6 miles in light rain. But it was the first time for me and it was a little disconcerting so I chose to land and wait it out. Nowhere did the OP say anything different than that. ANY time someone is uncomfortable with the situation it is NEVER wrong to land. That does not mean there is something lacking with preflight preparation, or any of that. It just means they are uncomfortable and want to get to safety.

Sheesh.

If more people did that, I would suggest the accident/fatality rate would be much lower than it is.
 
There is a difference between an airport being closed and a runway being closed. Even when it is the only runway on the field. Sometimes people don't bother with the "x". Sometimes it blew away.

No disagreement! But note that the only runway at an airport can be closed, but the airport still be open. First, helicopters can still be accommodated. Second, they can use the taxiway as a runway. That's what we found when we flew into Kalispell, MT.
 
I think the poster meant to say "than," not "then.". Looking up in the A/FD while still flying is, I think, what they were discouraging.

Probably.

BTW, when you make an editorial correction in a quotation, it's customary to put the correction in square brackets (i.e., "[ ]").
 
However, I would not admit to the FAA that you didn't see the NOTAM during your preflight planning, as the later emergency would not excuse you from failing to familiarize yourself with all avaliable information pertinent to the flight prior to the flight as required by 14 CFR 91.103.

You know, you can take that to ridiculous extremes. I daresay that it is impossible to know EVERYTHING there is to know about a particular flight. How many of us check the status of EVERY airport along a given route of flight? How many briefers would disseminate EVERY bit of information on EVERY airport along the way?

In the heat of the battle, if I saw an airport that was a "Port in the Storm", I doubt I would be thumbing through a phone book sized package of information just to see if that was the airport I remembered being closed. Land, get safe, THEN sort it out.

Sheesh.
 
Probably.

BTW, when you make an editorial correction in a quotation, it's customary to put the correction in square brackets (i.e., "[ ]").

You're right. I'm in the dentist chair getting a root canal, so please excuse my laziness. I'll go back and fix it.
 
In a nonemergency situation, that would make all the difference in the world, as you are responsible for the information in that NOTAM even if your sectional didn't show it closed. The FAA could certainly make a case for a nonemergency landing at a known closed airport being careless/reckless since the reason it was closed might involve serious safety hazards not enunciated in the NOTAM. However, since this was a "condition concerning the safety of an aircraft," it was a valid emergency situation which permitted you to deviate from any relevant rules by landing there.

However, I would not admit to the FAA that you didn't see the NOTAM during your preflight planning, as the later emergency would not excuse you from failing to familiarize yourself with all avaliable information pertinent to the flight prior to the flight as required by 14 CFR 91.103.

This wasn't his point of intended landing, nor was it a planned alternate. Do you read every NOTAM for every airport between departure and destination for every flight?
 
Sigh. Let's always jump to the conclusion that something is lacking in the knowledge of the OP.

I remember the first time I flew in any sort of rain. It was probably 7,000 overcast and maybe 6 miles in light rain. But it was the first time for me and it was a little disconcerting so I chose to land and wait it out. Nowhere did the OP say anything different than that. ANY time someone is uncomfortable with the situation it is NEVER wrong to land. That does not mean there is something lacking with preflight preparation, or any of that. It just means they are uncomfortable and want to get to safety.

Sheesh.

If more people did that, I would suggest the accident/fatality rate would be much lower than it is.

Amen!

A local guy recently made a precautionary landing in a field. Engine wasn't running well and the pilot decided he'd rather sort it out on the ground - on his own terms.

(Don't know all the details; but, there was a mechanical issue that was able to be remedied in the field and the plane and pilot are safely home.)
 
You know, you can take that to ridiculous extremes. I daresay that it is impossible to know EVERYTHING there is to know about a particular flight.
I agree, but I can still see the FAA holding one's feet to the fire over a pertinent NOTAM that came up in a standard DUATS brief.

In the heat of the battle, if I saw an airport that was a "Port in the Storm", I doubt I would be thumbing through a phone book sized package of information just to see if that was the airport I remembered being closed. Land, get safe, THEN sort it out.
No question that in the OP's emergency situation, it would not be an issue, and I said so. I merely noted in addition that if it were not an emergency, it could.
 
This wasn't his point of intended landing, nor was it a planned alternate. Do you read every NOTAM for every airport between departure and destination for every flight?
All I said was I wouldn't admit to not having seen the NOTAM. Emergency developed, landed there, end of story -- whether the airport was open or closed isn't an issue in that situation, so I wouldn't even bring up the matter with the FAA.
 
...However, I would not admit to the FAA that you didn't see the NOTAM during your preflight planning, as the later emergency would not excuse you from failing to familiarize yourself with all avaliable information pertinent to the flight prior to the flight as required by 14 CFR 91.103.

I wouldn't volunteer the information, but if they asked, it would be better to not answer than to lie to the feds, as there is potential jail time for the latter, as Martha Stewart found out.

Is it really a requirement though, to become familiar before flight with all available information about all the airports that one is not planning to land at and that are not planned alternates? If so, that would be an impossibly burdensome task.

[Edit: I see others beat me to it!]
 
Last edited:
Is it really a requirement though, to become familiar before flight with all available information about all the airports that one is not planning to land at and that are not planned alternates? If so, that would be an impossibly burdensome task.
I don't think so, and that's why I said it wouldn't matter in the OP's emergency situation as 91.3(b) applies.

However, I went on to say that in a nonemergency situation, if the chart showed the airport open but a NOTAM said it was closed, and you didn't obtain/read the NOTAM, the FAA could call that a violation of several regulations. Say, you're flying along from Point A to Point B and just on a whim, decide to land at Point C without having checked NOTAMs for Point C before or during flight. It turns out Point C is NOTAM'd closed, and you crunch into the reason it was closed. I believe the FAA will run an enforcement action against you, and that action will be successful.
 
I remember my first CFI smacking me around on occasion when we diverted to unfamiliar-to-me airports. The questions were "which rwy are you going to use, and what's the length, what's the TPA, ...", most of the questions were on info NOT on the sectional, so I had to pull out the A/FD to verify rwy length and some other things. We even diverted to an airport at night, where the lights were on a different freq than the CTAF - the A/FD had to be dug back out for that one, too. But, this was always in good conditions, and part of a controlled excercise. If the weather is deteriorating to the point of needing to make a precautionary landing, then fly the plane first and don't drop the plane to find the A/FD.
 
I wouldn't volunteer the information, but if they asked, it would be better to not answer than to lie to the feds, as there is potential jail time for the latter, as Martha Stewart found out.

Is it really a requirement though, to become familiar before flight with all available information about all the airports that one is not planning to land at and that are not planned alternates? If so, that would be an impossibly burdensome task.

[Edit: I see others beat me to it!]


So simply because we're enroute we have no planning obligation? Forget about the NOTAM in this case. It was in the AFD. If I'm diverting due to weather then I'm going to land at a suitable landing field and have info on the airport prior to landing. If I'm getting ready to go IMC and getting low on fuel then I'm landing anywhere I can regardless of info. That's the difference of an emergency situation and a non-emergency situation.
 
We have a small airport nearby owned by a small town that has been notam "AD closed" for two years. The runway needed paving. The town did not have the money to repave and sure did not have it to paint "X's". It appears normal on the sectional. Some local pilots(not me and my $7000 prop) still fly in and out occasionally. The town did not want the liability and this is the minimum required of the town. Get used to it as our economy goes downhill.

Would I use it in a wx situation before I had Foreflight? Depended on how bad I let it get and how far to the next known open airport. Also think about trying to look up an airport in the AFD. Lets see, is it under the town or county or some other name. In turbulence? Type aircraft?

Now I use Foreflight and probably would be checking all airports around me before it got down to my personal minimums. Many of you high time experienced guys are forgetting that us new guys are left to figure weather out on our own. You only have to learn the basics in flight training and my school did not allow flying with <5 mi vis, <3000' clg and >10 kt winds. I purchased many wx books, read online then found two CFI's later to go up in marginal wx with TS not too far away. I learned alot about my personal minimums and XM weather on my 496. Much easier than learning on your own or with my family.

Like someone else said, it is hard to hear about all of these fatal accidents. I am glad he is able to post. He learned a good lesson as we all have. Get back on the horse and keep learning. Fly safe.
 
Last edited:
He's an example where the guy declared an emergency situation but was still at fault for violating the FARs. While landing at a closed airport might not be a direct violation of the FARs it still shows that his enroute airport selection was poor and possibly that his wx planning might not have complied with FAR 91.103. It think it's safe to say as pilots the courts are rarely on our side in these events.





In a recent NTSB ruling, the emergency deviation rule didn't prevent suspension of the pilot's license for failure to establish radio communication before entering Class D airspace. The pilot was operating a Bell 206 LongRanger helicopter in marginal VFR conditions, on a flight to Wings Airfield near Philadelphia, when he inadvertently entered the Willow Grove Naval Air Station Class D airspace. He claimed he mistook it for Wings until he saw military aircraft on the ground, at which time he contacted the Willow Grove tower.

The FAA charged him with violation of FAR 91.129(c)(1), failure to establish and maintain two-way radio communication before entering Class D airspace. The pilot asserted that his "entry into that airspace was unintentional and inadvertent," and "was a result of an emergency situation." He attributed the "emergency situation" to the inclement weather in the airspace and contended that the weather caused him to become disoriented. The pilot asserted that he acted reasonably under the circumstances: upon recognizing the airport as Willow Grove, he established "immediate two-way radio communication with that facility, advised them of his situation, requested and obtained a telephone number from them in order to furnish the details of his situation and, having then reoriented himself, promptly left the area, without landing."

The trial judge ruled that the pilot's entry into Class D airspace was impermissible, and that he failed to both establish and maintain ATC communications. The judge found that the incursion occurred prior to the pilot's establishment of ATC communications, and that he didn't establish contact until he was over the taxiway.

With regard to the pilot's assertion that an "emergency situation" justified his incursion into Class D airspace, the law judge concluded that the circumstances didn't excuse the pilot's violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.129(c)(1). Any emergency that occurred was the result of the pilot's own actions. Moreover, the pilot didn't take appropriate steps to reduce the risk of an incursion. Weather forecast information available before the flight indicated flying conditions would be marginal, with only "a mile and a half visibility," indicating that VFR flights would've been inappropriate. Given the marginal weather conditions, the FAA inspector testified that the pilot was obligated to "keep emergency options open ... if he was going to proceed along the route of flight that he was talking about."

In discussing the pilot's use of Willow Grove as an emergency diversion airfield, the FAA inspector testified that the pilot "should have had a contingency plan." The pilot's failure to have such a plan indicated his lack of preparedness and his failure to maintain "proper awareness of where he was, so he could use the plan if he needed it."

The court found that the pilot hadn't met his burden of proving that emergency conditions caused his lack of preparedness and awareness. The record indicated that he was likely on a tight schedule, and as a result, determined the marginal weather conditions were satisfactory. When conditions deteriorated in all directions, he began maneuvering around the weather, became disoriented and inadvertently proceeded into the Class D airspace. Based on this record, the court said, an appropriate flight plan would've helped the respondent avoid this situation; therefore, no emergency existed pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 91.3.

On appeal, the NTSB upheld a 45-day suspension.
 
Last edited:
Remember, ATC and FSS can also provide NOTAM information if you have not already allowed yourself to be pushed down too low. One reason I am on with flight following 90% of the time.
 
So simply because we're enroute we have no planning obligation? Forget about the NOTAM in this case. It was in the AFD.
If the information was published in something a prudent pilot should be carrying, there will be no way to argue that the NOTAM wasn't pertinent -- you should have had the information in the cockpit regardless. Obviously, in the OP's emergency situation, even knowing the airport was closed, landing there might have been the best move anyway. But without that emergency, the fact that it was in the A/FD will shoot down any "but the NOTAM wasn't pertinent to the planned flight" argument.
 
Remember, ATC and FSS can also provide NOTAM information if you have not already allowed yourself to be pushed down too low. One reason I am on with flight following 90% of the time.

Exactly! When I'm out of options at the end of the line I say to ATC "I need a vector to VMC and the nearest airport." If the guy is cool he'll even give me all the pertinent info on the airfield.
 
The questions were "which rwy are you going to use,

The one into the wind???

and what's the length,

You should be able to judge if you have enough realestate to land on early on in your training, so my answer would be "enough"

what's the TPA, ...",

1k AGL default if I need to land quick (not a FAR btw)


If the weather is deteriorating to the point of needing to make a precautionary landing, then fly the plane first and don't drop the plane to find the A/FD.

Bingo


Knowing where to look all the details up is good
Looking all the available details up for where you are going is good

Being able to land a plane without running numbers left and right, consulting multiple sources is important, being able to just fly the plane, eyeball a good landing site (survey it if time permits) and have a uneventful landing it is far more important to me as a CFI

There are no AFD pages or even sectional charts notations depicting some of the places I have landed and yet we were still were able to land the plane.
 
I agree, but I can still see the FAA holding one's feet to the fire over a pertinent NOTAM that came up in a standard DUATS brief.

If it were far enough off of the originally intended flight plan, it would NOT show up in the DUATS briefing. In this case, it may or may not have been in his briefing.

Having no briefing (that could be proven) would be more worrisome to me these days with FAA playing "gotcha games" than landing there if it weren't in the briefing because it was too far off of the intended flight path.

And the chart error is a contributing factor, especially if it's been on the chart through multiple revisions as an open airport.
 
The FAA these days, or the ALJ only has to start a sentence with 'the pilot should have......'

It's all second guessing and after the fact perfect vision when you are on the ground, in a safe building, with the AC running and the lights on. The amount of armchair QB going on with the enforcement powers is absolutely stunning to see or read. The more info you feed them, the deeper they will twist the knife.
 
If the information was published in something a prudent pilot should be carrying, there will be no way to argue that the NOTAM wasn't pertinent -- you should have had the information in the cockpit regardless. Obviously, in the OP's emergency situation, even knowing the airport was closed, landing there might have been the best move anyway. But without that emergency, the fact that it was in the A/FD will shoot down any "but the NOTAM wasn't pertinent to the planned flight" argument.

Depending on the weather conditions, getting the airplane on the ground may have been a bigger priority than digging up the AFD. In that situation, I'm hitting "nearest" and landing on the runway unless it it has equipment on it or trenches dug across it. Beats the heck out of a farmer's field or becoming a VFR into IMC statistic.
 
I can just see it now: "Probable cause: pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane while looking up airport data."

There are some situations where the pilot's goal needs to be to survive long enough to attend the hearing.
 
You're suggesting that not looking up every airport that you're going to fly over is poor planning?
Only if you are projecting that onto me. I'm just trying to get the guy to file an ASRS and not self incriminate.....looks for the "ignore poster" button. Don't be putting, "VIOLATED AN FAR" in the title. "I could have done better" is just FINE. Of course, that means you have to admit that you're not God's GIFT to aviation. Can YOU do that? What kind of a pi__ a__ attitude you are projecting here......
I have alternates along the route...but every airport is not an alternate. If I discovered weather in my way and did not feel that I could safely make it to one of my alternates, I would have done exactly the same thing for the same reason.
As I said. Reread my post. Now, what really sucks, is the weather planning. But no need to mention that. When you get to emergency landings, that is the LAST link in the chan before something baaaad happens....
The only reason to file an ARSA report is to note that the runway isn't marked as closed so that can be corrected.
No. It's also to make the feds change the stupid NOTAM system in which after about a year, the NOTAMS are take out of the file. Read the Pilots' Bill of Rights. It's about improving the system.
 
Last edited:
I must say the NOTAM system is much improved from what it was a few years ago. Of course that doesn't mean it can't be improved further.
 
The FAA these days, or the ALJ only has to start a sentence with 'the pilot should have......'

There was a certain Federal agency that (30 years ago) adopted this definition for "WILLFUL violation" of that agency's rules and regulations:

A willful violation is one where the (violator of our rules/regulations) failed to take adequate steps to prevent the violation from occurring

That definition was vetted by agency counsel & distributed to all enforcement personnel.

Think about it for a minute. It's not that you intentionally went out to violate the rules.... it's that you didn't take adequate steps to prevent the violation. Meaning that even an inadvertant and unintentional violation could get you cited for willful - which carried a MUCH higher penalty.

I will assume with nearly complete certainty that the same definition would be adopted by other agencies.
 
Just a stupid question, but what is all the argument about? I thought the consensus was that the OP did the right thing given the emergency nature of the situation?
 
Just a stupid question, but what is all the argument about? I thought the consensus was that the OP did the right thing given the emergency nature of the situation?

We're all arguing over whether or not the FAA could bust him over the rule that says one must be familiar with every damn thing ever published about every airport he crossed over on his flight.

As if it matters.

He still did the right thing.

Whether the modern FAA driven by policy and procedure vs. brains and judgement, would agree if they saw it -- is in serious question.
 
There was a certain Federal agency that (30 years ago) adopted this definition for "WILLFUL violation" of that agency's rules and regulations:



That definition was vetted by agency counsel & distributed to all enforcement personnel.

Think about it for a minute. It's not that you intentionally went out to violate the rules.... it's that you didn't take adequate steps to prevent the violation. Meaning that even an inadvertant and unintentional violation could get you cited for willful - which carried a MUCH higher penalty.

I will assume with nearly complete certainty that the same definition would be adopted by other agencies.

Spike would ask you to lookup mens rea. it's a trend we currently have going on criminalizing all kinds of behavior. Almost as if one had to prove non-intent? :D
 
Just a stupid question, but what is all the argument about? I thought the consensus was that the OP did the right thing given the emergency nature of the situation?
It's about one singularly combative poster. It's as if he's always looking for a fight.
 
Wrong move? as long as you could tell the runway was safe, no problem. Filing the NASA form, why divulge info you don't have to.
 
My opinion is to side with those who say only that you encountered an urgent situation, and then made the prudent decision to land at what you judged to be the most suitable place. If anyone quips, "didn't you know the airport was closed?" you can reply that the situation was urgent, you found the airport, you saw no X's, and made your decision.

IMO, it was a good decision.
 
OP here. Just for the heck of it, I emailed the FAA on the fact that it doesn't appear closed on the sectional, and here is the response I got. Makes no sense to me, but I'd expect nothing less from a government agency. I'm done with this issue, and I'm not filing a NASA form. If the owner doesn't want planes landing there every now and then, then they need to mark the runways or get it marked as closed on the sectional.

My email:

****** County Airport (***, ***** Sectional) is listed as being closed indefinitely. There is also a NOTAM for this airport which states "AD Closed, effective immediately until further notice. Created: 12 Aug 14:09 2011."

I've noticed that this airport is not depicted as closed on the sectional and wasn't sure if this was an error or not. I would have thought the sectional would reflect this, especially since it has been closed for over a year.

Just curious whether this is an error or whether I am missing something. Thanks.
________________

FAA Response:

Mr. ******,

We received your inquiry regarding ****** County Airport (***). The airport is indeed closed indefinitely, but our VFR Charting specifications state that we still chart the airport. The reason is that "closed indefinitely", by definition, means that the airport could reopen at any point, even if there are no plans to reopen it, and VFR Sectionals are only published every six months.

I am hopeful that this answers your question. Thanks for your inquiry and for using AeroNav Products' VFR Charts!
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top