Narrative:

We were operating in VFR conditions and were unable to land at our intended destination (irk) due to runway closed. We decided to divert to a nearby airport (K89) and have our passenger drive there to meet us. We made a normal landing at K89, announcing our position and intentions on unicom 122.8. After landing we contacted our passenger at irk and discovered the runway at irk had been opened. We departed K89 and went to irk to pick up our passenger. Although no one had said anything to us on the unicom, a local pilot at irk said he had heard us announce our intentions to land at K89. He informed us that the K89 airport was closed. We later checked NOTAMS for K89 and the airport was indeed notamed closed. At no time during our arrival or departure at K89 did I observe an X on any part of the runway. I believe this incident would not have occurred if there had been an X on each end of the runway at K89. I guess this goes to show that you can never have too much information concerning a particular flight. Although we did not intend to use the K89 airport when we departed for irk, if we had checked NOTAMS for airports in the vicinity of irk, we would have known that K89 was closed. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states the airport at original destination did have X's on the runway, so they knew not to land there. Second airport had no markings. Captain of this flight received the briefing and was not given any NOTAM reference closed runway. Flight crew did not inquire about their alternate airport but also did not see any markings.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CORP ACFT FINDS DEST ARPT CLOSED, FLIES TO ALTERNATE AND LANDS. AFTER THE FACT, DETERMINES SECOND ARPT CLOSED. NO MARKINGS.

Narrative: WE WERE OPERATING IN VFR CONDITIONS AND WERE UNABLE TO LAND AT OUR INTENDED DEST (IRK) DUE TO RWY CLOSED. WE DECIDED TO DIVERT TO A NEARBY ARPT (K89) AND HAVE OUR PAX DRIVE THERE TO MEET US. WE MADE A NORMAL LNDG AT K89, ANNOUNCING OUR POS AND INTENTIONS ON UNICOM 122.8. AFTER LNDG WE CONTACTED OUR PAX AT IRK AND DISCOVERED THE RWY AT IRK HAD BEEN OPENED. WE DEPARTED K89 AND WENT TO IRK TO PICK UP OUR PAX. ALTHOUGH NO ONE HAD SAID ANYTHING TO US ON THE UNICOM, A LCL PLT AT IRK SAID HE HAD HEARD US ANNOUNCE OUR INTENTIONS TO LAND AT K89. HE INFORMED US THAT THE K89 ARPT WAS CLOSED. WE LATER CHKED NOTAMS FOR K89 AND THE ARPT WAS INDEED NOTAMED CLOSED. AT NO TIME DURING OUR ARR OR DEP AT K89 DID I OBSERVE AN X ON ANY PART OF THE RWY. I BELIEVE THIS INCIDENT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED IF THERE HAD BEEN AN X ON EACH END OF THE RWY AT K89. I GUESS THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT YOU CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MUCH INFO CONCERNING A PARTICULAR FLT. ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT INTEND TO USE THE K89 ARPT WHEN WE DEPARTED FOR IRK, IF WE HAD CHKED NOTAMS FOR ARPTS IN THE VICINITY OF IRK, WE WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT K89 WAS CLOSED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATES THE ARPT AT ORIGINAL DEST DID HAVE X'S ON THE RWY, SO THEY KNEW NOT TO LAND THERE. SECOND ARPT HAD NO MARKINGS. CAPT OF THIS FLT RECEIVED THE BRIEFING AND WAS NOT GIVEN ANY NOTAM REF CLOSED RWY. FLC DID NOT INQUIRE ABOUT THEIR ALTERNATE ARPT BUT ALSO DID NOT SEE ANY MARKINGS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.