|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Locale Reference||atc facility : zzz|
airport : dpa
|Controlling Facilities||tracon : 73j|
|Affiliation||government : faa|
|Function||observation : observer|
|Qualification||pilot : commercial|
pilot : instrument
pilot : cfi
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 40|
flight time total : 10000
|Independent Detector||other other : unspecified|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : unable|
|Consequence||faa : investigated|
|Primary Problem||Flight Crew Human Performance|
|Air Traffic Incident||Pilot Deviation|
We have a potentially unsafe condition existing at all airports, but more especially those located in the snow areas. Airport mgrsecond officerperators have a legal and moral responsibility to report by NOTAM any unsafe condition on their airport. Far 139.339 requires the issuance of NOTAMS for certificated airports. Chapter 5, para 290, of the aim discusses NOTAM issuance. Far part 91.5 addresses pilot's responsibilities in obtaining all the information available before beginning a flight. However, we have experienced instances when pilots have landed on runways notamed closed for snow removal, remarking or other necessary maintenance. In some cases the pilot was aware of the NOTAM but landed anyway. This obviously endangers not only the life of the pilot, but also the people on the ground. Far 91.9 addresses careless and reckless operation so as to endanger the life or property of another. Notwithstanding the above, when an airport operator reports a pilot landing on a closed, properly notamed runway to the FAA, apparently no action can be taken because there was no personal or property damage caused by the landing. This certainly cannot be the intent of the NOTAM system or the spirit of part 91.9. There are men and equipment working to keep the airport safe, using all the procedures at their disposal to keep the flying public aware of the conditions on their airport, to include closing the runway, and it appears the fed regulations are not in existence to protect to the extent possible, these people from harm. It would seem to me the FAA could, and should, make landing on a properly closed runway an offense under the provisions of part 91.9. West/O such support, the issuance of a NOTAM closing a runway is worthless and provides no protection for airport maintenance personnel. It would seem since part 91.91 can invoke temporary flight restrictions by NOTAM, why shouldn't a NOTAM closing a runway or airport have the same enforcement and impact on aviation. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: the reporter is an FAA aci. He is having problems getting airport mgrs to keep runway NOTAMS current and part of the problem he claims is the fact that the FAA will not take any action against a pilot or flight crew unless there is damage or injury. Airport mgrs do not see the importance of notifying runway conditions if they can be willfully ignored.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: COMPLAINT ABOUT PLT FLT CREW LNDG ON RWYS NOTAMED AS CLOSED AND NO ACTION BY FAA IF NO INJURY OR DAMAGE OCCURRED.
Narrative: WE HAVE A POTENTIALLY UNSAFE CONDITION EXISTING AT ALL ARPTS, BUT MORE ESPECIALLY THOSE LOCATED IN THE SNOW AREAS. ARPT MGRS/OPERATORS HAVE A LEGAL AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO REPORT BY NOTAM ANY UNSAFE CONDITION ON THEIR ARPT. FAR 139.339 REQUIRES THE ISSUANCE OF NOTAMS FOR CERTIFICATED ARPTS. CHAPTER 5, PARA 290, OF THE AIM DISCUSSES NOTAM ISSUANCE. FAR PART 91.5 ADDRESSES PLT'S RESPONSIBILITIES IN OBTAINING ALL THE INFO AVAILABLE BEFORE BEGINNING A FLT. HOWEVER, WE HAVE EXPERIENCED INSTANCES WHEN PLTS HAVE LANDED ON RWYS NOTAMED CLOSED FOR SNOW REMOVAL, REMARKING OR OTHER NECESSARY MAINT. IN SOME CASES THE PLT WAS AWARE OF THE NOTAM BUT LANDED ANYWAY. THIS OBVIOUSLY ENDANGERS NOT ONLY THE LIFE OF THE PLT, BUT ALSO THE PEOPLE ON THE GND. FAR 91.9 ADDRESSES CARELESS AND RECKLESS OPERATION SO AS TO ENDANGER THE LIFE OR PROPERTY OF ANOTHER. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE, WHEN AN ARPT OPERATOR RPTS A PLT LNDG ON A CLOSED, PROPERLY NOTAMED RWY TO THE FAA, APPARENTLY NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PERSONAL OR PROPERTY DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE LNDG. THIS CERTAINLY CANNOT BE THE INTENT OF THE NOTAM SYS OR THE SPIRIT OF PART 91.9. THERE ARE MEN AND EQUIP WORKING TO KEEP THE ARPT SAFE, USING ALL THE PROCS AT THEIR DISPOSAL TO KEEP THE FLYING PUBLIC AWARE OF THE CONDITIONS ON THEIR ARPT, TO INCLUDE CLOSING THE RWY, AND IT APPEARS THE FED REGS ARE NOT IN EXISTENCE TO PROTECT TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, THESE PEOPLE FROM HARM. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THE FAA COULD, AND SHOULD, MAKE LNDG ON A PROPERLY CLOSED RWY AN OFFENSE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PART 91.9. W/O SUCH SUPPORT, THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTAM CLOSING A RWY IS WORTHLESS AND PROVIDES NO PROTECTION FOR ARPT MAINT PERSONNEL. IT WOULD SEEM SINCE PART 91.91 CAN INVOKE TEMPORARY FLT RESTRICTIONS BY NOTAM, WHY SHOULDN'T A NOTAM CLOSING A RWY OR ARPT HAVE THE SAME ENFORCEMENT AND IMPACT ON AVIATION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: THE RPTR IS AN FAA ACI. HE IS HAVING PROBS GETTING ARPT MGRS TO KEEP RWY NOTAMS CURRENT AND PART OF THE PROB HE CLAIMS IS THE FACT THAT THE FAA WILL NOT TAKE ANY ACTION AGAINST A PLT OR FLT CREW UNLESS THERE IS DAMAGE OR INJURY. ARPT MGRS DO NOT SEE THE IMPORTANCE OF NOTIFYING RWY CONDITIONS IF THEY CAN BE WILLFULLY IGNORED.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.