Narrative:

High winds out of north at 30 degrees, gusting to 45 KTS. Was familiar with abq. Found north/south runway closed by government official, ostensibly for noise abatement. Severe wind conditions also present at santa flight engineer. Many aircraft had major difficulty landing that day, according to FBO. All pilots were upset, regarding the unsafe conditions landing in 30 degrees or greater xwinds of this strength. Acrs reporting 10 KT windshear on final. Every pilot expressed safety concerns that day. I suggest that compromise for safety is appropriate. Open the runway, for lndgs only, when wind conditions are above some chosen reasonable limits. In this way risks are minimized. Also on those quiet days, other less noise problematic runways can be used instead. Also, when winds are that high, blowing from the city (hall!) southward toward the airport, any aircraft noise cannot be heard upwind in the city. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states he spoke at length with the FBO who indicated there were numerous and bitter complaints about the runway closure from all levels of aircraft -- GA and air carrier that day. The FBO manager gave reporter the phone number of the government official if he wanted to complain directly. Reporter chose to write letters instead. He wrote to the government official, the airport manager, a state flying magazine editor, the AOPA, the air travelers organization, the tower chief, etc. He has received response from AOPA, the state flying magazine editor and ASRS. Reporter learned that the airport manager was on local tv and stated 'this is not about air safety' which is what the reporter feels it is all about. The airport manager it seems was appointed by the government official. Reporter is an ATP and a CFI and has experience in crosswind lndgs. This landing was still very difficult for him because of the gusty conditions. If, as claimed, the runway closure was for noise abatement purposes, the people involved are not very aware since the lndgs are not when the noise is the greatest. That occurs on takeoff, not landing. This is definitely a safety issue and reporter has had input leading him to question if the runway closure is even legal since federal funding is accepted at this airport. Aircraft was a PA32-300.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA32-300 PLT RPT REGARDING NEED FOR LNDG IN EXTREME XWIND CONDITIONS DUE TO RWY CLOSED BY GOV OFFICIAL'S DICTATE FOR NOISE ABATEMENT. MANY OTHER PLTS AND ACR PLTS COMPLAINING ALSO.

Narrative: HIGH WINDS OUT OF N AT 30 DEGS, GUSTING TO 45 KTS. WAS FAMILIAR WITH ABQ. FOUND N/S RWY CLOSED BY GOV OFFICIAL, OSTENSIBLY FOR NOISE ABATEMENT. SEVERE WIND CONDITIONS ALSO PRESENT AT SANTA FE. MANY ACFT HAD MAJOR DIFFICULTY LNDG THAT DAY, ACCORDING TO FBO. ALL PLTS WERE UPSET, REGARDING THE UNSAFE CONDITIONS LNDG IN 30 DEGS OR GREATER XWINDS OF THIS STRENGTH. ACRS RPTING 10 KT WINDSHEAR ON FINAL. EVERY PLT EXPRESSED SAFETY CONCERNS THAT DAY. I SUGGEST THAT COMPROMISE FOR SAFETY IS APPROPRIATE. OPEN THE RWY, FOR LNDGS ONLY, WHEN WIND CONDITIONS ARE ABOVE SOME CHOSEN REASONABLE LIMITS. IN THIS WAY RISKS ARE MINIMIZED. ALSO ON THOSE QUIET DAYS, OTHER LESS NOISE PROBLEMATIC RWYS CAN BE USED INSTEAD. ALSO, WHEN WINDS ARE THAT HIGH, BLOWING FROM THE CITY (HALL!) SOUTHWARD TOWARD THE ARPT, ANY ACFT NOISE CANNOT BE HEARD UPWIND IN THE CITY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES HE SPOKE AT LENGTH WITH THE FBO WHO INDICATED THERE WERE NUMEROUS AND BITTER COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE RWY CLOSURE FROM ALL LEVELS OF ACFT -- GA AND ACR THAT DAY. THE FBO MGR GAVE RPTR THE PHONE NUMBER OF THE GOV OFFICIAL IF HE WANTED TO COMPLAIN DIRECTLY. RPTR CHOSE TO WRITE LETTERS INSTEAD. HE WROTE TO THE GOV OFFICIAL, THE ARPT MGR, A STATE FLYING MAGAZINE EDITOR, THE AOPA, THE AIR TRAVELERS ORGANIZATION, THE TWR CHIEF, ETC. HE HAS RECEIVED RESPONSE FROM AOPA, THE STATE FLYING MAGAZINE EDITOR AND ASRS. RPTR LEARNED THAT THE ARPT MGR WAS ON LCL TV AND STATED 'THIS IS NOT ABOUT AIR SAFETY' WHICH IS WHAT THE RPTR FEELS IT IS ALL ABOUT. THE ARPT MGR IT SEEMS WAS APPOINTED BY THE GOV OFFICIAL. RPTR IS AN ATP AND A CFI AND HAS EXPERIENCE IN XWIND LNDGS. THIS LNDG WAS STILL VERY DIFFICULT FOR HIM BECAUSE OF THE GUSTY CONDITIONS. IF, AS CLAIMED, THE RWY CLOSURE WAS FOR NOISE ABATEMENT PURPOSES, THE PEOPLE INVOLVED ARE NOT VERY AWARE SINCE THE LNDGS ARE NOT WHEN THE NOISE IS THE GREATEST. THAT OCCURS ON TKOF, NOT LNDG. THIS IS DEFINITELY A SAFETY ISSUE AND RPTR HAS HAD INPUT LEADING HIM TO QUESTION IF THE RWY CLOSURE IS EVEN LEGAL SINCE FEDERAL FUNDING IS ACCEPTED AT THIS ARPT. ACFT WAS A PA32-300.

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.