 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
The pilot of a CE650XL failed to note that runway 16L at his destination was NOTAM'd closed. When advised on short final he opted to land on the parallel runway which he later realized was shorter than the part 135 required length which was applicable to his operation.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1197022 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201408 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0001-0600 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | HEF.Airport |
| State Reference | VA |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Night |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Citation Excel (C560XL) |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 135 |
| Flight Phase | Landing |
| Route In Use | Visual Approach Vectors |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Captain Pilot Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 103 Flight Crew Total 7968 Flight Crew Type 770 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural FAR Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
Landing at hef was not notified that 16L was closed until inside of 10 miles of airport. I had failed to see this in the notams in preflight planning. We changed to landing 16R. No problem landing however; after the fact; we realized the required far 135 landing distance was 300 feet longer than the actual runway. Aircraft far 91 landing distance was well inside of runway length.contributing factors included: a rushed; late night; flight and a late notification from ATC of the runway closure.corrective actions would include the need to slow down and complete preflight planning and ATC could notify of runway closures earlier to allow time to change airports.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: The pilot of a CE650XL failed to note that Runway 16L at his destination was NOTAM'd closed. When advised on short final he opted to land on the parallel runway which he later realized was shorter than the Part 135 required length which was applicable to his operation.
Narrative: Landing at HEF was not notified that 16L was closed until inside of 10 miles of airport. I had failed to see this in the NOTAMs in preflight planning. We changed to landing 16R. No problem landing however; after the fact; we realized the required FAR 135 landing distance was 300 feet longer than the actual runway. Aircraft FAR 91 landing distance was well inside of runway length.Contributing factors included: a rushed; late night; flight and a late notification from ATC of the runway closure.Corrective actions would include the need to slow down and complete preflight planning and ATC could notify of runway closures earlier to allow time to change airports.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.