DaleB
Final Approach
They just stated the obvious. "Yes, it's closed, but we still show it on the charts".
What, you expected a low level employee of a government bureaucracy to actually think before answering?
What, you expected a low level employee of a government bureaucracy to actually think before answering?
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
So it's closed, but not closed-closed.
RV10flyer
Pattern Altitude
The OP's airport in question is not unique as I posted above. The city at our nearby airport did not want the expense or liabilty. It is listed exactly the same and unmarked. Pavement is badly broken up, but it would be a whole lot better than the other landing choices around here...hills/trees. As a precautionary or emergency landing I would use ours in a heartbeat.
When it's Mount Snow - (West Dover, VT). It is open - the x is visible - it is in poor condition. From the A/FD:
AIRPORT REMARKS: Unattended. Fuel avbl 24 hrs with credit card. No
line of sight between rwy ends. Old X markings denoting clsd rwy
showing through asph coating. Rwy 01–19 pavement has
blocking, traverse cracking, rutting and loose rocks on rwy.
Primary surface area cluttered with trees. Transitional areas
cluttered with trees. Arpt lgts opr dusk–0700Z‡. Rwy 01–19 NSTD
lateral LIRL, all thld lgts missing. Ldg fee.
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
That sounds like a real nice place, they even have a landing fee.
It's a dump. Fortunately no one there to collect the fee.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
probably a definition difference between "closed indefinitly" which means the airport still exists it just isn't open for business, and something like "deactivated" which would probably prompt an X or removal on the chart.
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
Just curious: Anybody ever run into a NOTAM about the only runway being closed, but the airport still being open?
I think this is probably more common than a NOTAM about the AD being closed (like when the only rwy is being resurfaced), but I don't think I've run into it before.
edit: It may have happened at one my local airports when they were doing runway repairs overnight for a while. But I can't remember if the NOTAM just said the rwy was closed, or the whole airport was closed. (We do have a bit of helicopter traffic there, too)
I think this is probably more common than a NOTAM about the AD being closed (like when the only rwy is being resurfaced), but I don't think I've run into it before.
edit: It may have happened at one my local airports when they were doing runway repairs overnight for a while. But I can't remember if the NOTAM just said the rwy was closed, or the whole airport was closed. (We do have a bit of helicopter traffic there, too)
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
This is quite common. The airport can still be open for helicopter traffic or for airplanes landing and taking off on the taxiway.
Making calls on the CTAF for 14/32 into KFIT I got informed it was NOTAM closed, but I could land 2/20. Didn't see it in DUATS. Called the airport later, turned out a plane had a flat tire. Doubt this is what you're talking about however...
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
Not really - that's just temporary stuff that comes and goes throughout the day.
About the most interesting thing I heard on ATIS at my airport was "Be advised, shots fired in the vicinity." The airport had bee closed because of an attempted hijacking and hostage situation, complete with a shootout with the cops. It reopened after about 6-7 hrs, but the ATIS recording kept that little nugget for a while longer. I don't know if a NOTAM was issued or not.
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,761
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
I think I posted earlier in this thread about a similar situation we had going into Kalispell, MT, where the single runway was closed due to construction and traffic, including Part 121 flights, were using the taxiway.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Given the ambiguity in the term "indefinitely," this explanation actually makes some sense to me. I do think that there needs to be a requirement to put X's on the runway if there are no plans to reopen it.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
When your wing rotates.
Flying with a much more experienced friend 30-some years ago, we ran into a snow squall and put her down on the interstate highway below us, and taxied up the off ramp. After the weather cleared, the friendly highway patrolman stopped the traffic and my friend took off, while I hitched a ride the rest of the way home with the kind gentleman who followed us up the off-ramp. He took a picture since he'd never had a plane land ahead of him on a highway before.
Still haven't heard of any issues over three decades later.
Still haven't heard of any issues over three decades later.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
It's still charted(although administratively closed) for the exact purpose the OP put it to. Any runway in a storm. The FAA in this case is doing the right thing although not sure if it was serendipity or planning. Annotate it as closed so that one will not plan a flight to that airport, but still chart it as a landable surface should someone need it as a precautionary or emergency.
<sorry about the dangling participle.>
<sorry about the dangling participle.>
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
OP, can you please specify exactly which airport this was? I'm very curious to know whether they have any FAA grant obligations. If they're closing the field permanently but treating it as if it's temporary, they may be simply burning up the last couple/few years of their grant obligations by having the airport "indefinitely" closed as opposed to permanently closing it which would violate the grant obligations.
Dirty tricks! I'm wondering how widespread this is, since it seems several posters have come across this type of situation. (And anyone else who knows of such a situation somewhere else currently, I'd like to hear about that too!)
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Not nearly as exciting, but recently I was preflighting at a towered, airline-service airport and heard shots being fired across the road, opposite the terminal. At one point, after a couple of shots had been fired, a piece of "stuff" pinged off the wing of the plane and hit me in the arm - It appeared to be a pellet from a shotgun shell.
I informed the FBO, they called the sheriff stationed on the field, he came and took a look and then went across the road to remind folks that they should avoid shooting in the general direction of the airport.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Look it up, see what's up, and if there's nefarious things going on, try to do something about it. Oh, and don't forget being righteously indignant on internet message boards.
And, BTW, never mind - I found it. 7T3, Goliad County Industrial Airpark in Berclair, TX. Under the "Federal Agreements" section of the FAA database, it's listed only as "N" which stands for National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. Dunno if that requires it to stay open.
Oddly enough, this is a fairly new airport - The activation date is listed as 9/1/2000 and it's got two 8000x150 concrete runways, so it could certainly be used for some "industrial" uses. Sounds like maybe they were trying to develop it when the economy was really good and it faltered and they don't want to spend any money on it any more.
Sure would be interesting to know the local situation and whether or not they intend to open it back up eventually.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
If it really is permanently closed, though, they can still chart it and label it as closed, which allows for the emergency option as well as use as a visual waypoint. They shouldn't leave it charted as open when it isn't unless there are plans to reopen it.
Like this:
Attachments
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,962
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
If the airport he land at is indeed Goliad it is marked with X's. Granted they are difficult to see, but they are there. Two sites show it below, and there is some interesting history behind the airport too.
http://www.aopa.org/airports/7T3 AOPA site. Look at the GOOGLE satellite map and zoom in.
http://www.airfields-freeman.com/TX/Airfields_TX_Corpus_NW.htm Go to the bottom of the page and there are pictures from 2005 showing the X's
http://www.remembergoliad.com/index.htm The locals apparently do not want it reopened by the Navy.
Even with the X's there I feel the OP did the correct thing... if he had not done the landing there this could have been yet another VMC into IMC crash discussion. So depsite the naysayers he should be proud of himself. Personally, I would rather see the suspension or administrative action on my ticket for landing someplace I should not have because I was uncomfortable with the flight conditions for any reason then to have my family read the NTSB report that blames the crash on the pilot's failure to control the airplane with contributing factors of weather and terrain.
Doug
http://www.aopa.org/airports/7T3 AOPA site. Look at the GOOGLE satellite map and zoom in.
http://www.airfields-freeman.com/TX/Airfields_TX_Corpus_NW.htm Go to the bottom of the page and there are pictures from 2005 showing the X's
http://www.remembergoliad.com/index.htm The locals apparently do not want it reopened by the Navy.
Even with the X's there I feel the OP did the correct thing... if he had not done the landing there this could have been yet another VMC into IMC crash discussion. So depsite the naysayers he should be proud of himself. Personally, I would rather see the suspension or administrative action on my ticket for landing someplace I should not have because I was uncomfortable with the flight conditions for any reason then to have my family read the NTSB report that blames the crash on the pilot's failure to control the airplane with contributing factors of weather and terrain.
Doug
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
I landed at a closed airport once after a bird strike: N69, Stormville NY.
I landed there because I really didn't know I'd hit a bird until after I was on the ground and saw the blood. In the air, all I knew was that I'd heard and felt a loud "thud" that seemed to come from forward of the firewall; so with a runway right there, landing seemed like a fine idea. (It was a weekday, so the flea market wasn't set up at the airport.)
-Rich
I landed there because I really didn't know I'd hit a bird until after I was on the ground and saw the blood. In the air, all I knew was that I'd heard and felt a loud "thud" that seemed to come from forward of the firewall; so with a runway right there, landing seemed like a fine idea. (It was a weekday, so the flea market wasn't set up at the airport.)
-Rich
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well... Not really. 10/28 has X's not at the thresholds, but at the fake-carrier-deck thresholds - Pretty easy to miss, especially since they've got a bunch of other markings on them and they're pretty faded. 16/34 does not have any X's. (I base these observations off of the Google Maps satellite view, almost certainly newer than 2005.)
No doubt.
Thanks for the links, BTW - Interesting.
U
Unregistered
Guest
This discussion is sure sending people out in a wide holding pattern! As I have been investigating private-use airports the issue of landing off-airport comes up a lot. Is there anything in the FARs that makes it a violation to land at other than an "open" airport? No, it only says that if you damage something, you're responsible for it. Some airports are "closed," marked with X's or R's but are in fact just prior-permission-required. My point is, it's a civil property rights thing, not an FAA matter. Just the same as if you landed on a road somewhere, the FAA doesn't care as long as you don't bend anything, but the owner of the road might. Some states and counties have different rules, for instance in California you can't land within city limits, within 1000 feet of a school or in certain designated wilderness areas but where it isn't prohibited, what rule is being broken?
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,226
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yeah but this isn't the 1920's barn storming days. If I chose to land on a road instead of a runway you can bet the FAA will have me up on 91.13 charges. Doesn't matter if I cause damage or not.