KHBR - Single X on runway

Lindberg said:
Confirm, verb: establish the truth or correctness of (something previously believed, suspected, or feared to be the case).

His belief that 35 was not closed was correct, and he subsequently confirmed it.

You're welcome. :rockon:
Click to expand...

What does 35 have to do with it?
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
And by this response, I can tell that I'd like to meet the CFI who proclaimed you were ready for your checkride. If you can't handle a 19 knot crosswind, you've got underlying issues. Choosing to land on a runway that you don't know the status of is an entirely different issue.

I could cut you some slack on the crosswind if you were 3 days removed from your private ride. But at 300 hours, you should have flown enough to have some experience to be able to deal with that kind of wind. And if you don't, you shouldn't be flying in a situation that would require that kind of skill
Click to expand...

My CFI in particular or just a CFI in general who doesn't require a student to demonstrate a 19 knot crosswind component landing prior to checkride? I would be more more interested to know who would require that? Some type of Top Gun school for GA perhaps....

As stated by someone else the plane has a 15 knot demonstrated max.... So given the option I will avoid going over that if possible. Should note I can, and have, landed in those conditions.... Something ironic about questioning my choice to land, but calling me an unsat pilot for not wanting to land in a 19 knot crosswind.
 
OP, thanks for sharing your experience and asking the question. I am here to learn and you have helped at least one person (me).
 
OkieAviator said:
Argument on if I SHOULD of landed or not aside for now, it started out as a theory but then was confirmed with the Airport Manager. Said they're working on the taxi way onto 17. "Runway is completely open you just can't use the Taxiway". So apparently putting an X on one side isn't common practice, or at least not enough for the reason being obvious to everyone. As you had said, if you're landing 35, you wouldn't of known.
Click to expand...
What am I missing? I don' t see how the X, as shown, has anything to do with the taxiway. I do know that sandbags on an open runway is not correct.

NOTAMs currently include:
!HBR 01/010 HBR TWY PARL ADJ RWY 17/35 N 1000FT CLSD 1601292014-1603011800
Click to expand...
 
Lindberg said:
That seems to be the direction he landed. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Ha! Now that I look back at everything, he never did say which direction he landed.
My initial reading was 17 and this mis-understanding was further "confirmed" by this statement:

OkieAviator said:
Argument on if I SHOULD of landed or not aside for now, it started out as a theory but then was confirmed with the Airport Manager. Said they're working on the taxi way onto 17. "Runway is completely open you just can't use the Taxiway". So apparently putting an X on one side isn't common practice, or at least not enough for the reason being obvious to everyone. As you had said, if you're landing 35, you wouldn't of known.
<snip>
Click to expand...

... (IOW, since he was landing on 17 he DID know)
 
POA and internet at its finest.
After prudent decision making in this situation;
"I can't believe you weren't skilled enough to land in those x winds"

Reading an accident report in this situation;
"What kind of dipstick tries to land in 19kt crosswinds with a plane only demonstrated at 15 kts? Idiot pilot"

Geez
 
Yep...

people-in-glass-houses-should-throw-parties-with-strippers.jpg
 
kkoran said:
What am I missing? I don' t see how the X, as shown, has anything to do with the taxiway. I do know that sandbags on an open runway is not correct.
Click to expand...
Likely to get to the taxiway from that end of 17/35 planes back taxi on 12/30 rather than halfway down 17/35 to get to the taxiway.
 
JoeSelch said:
Ha! Now that I look back at everything, he never did say which direction he landed.
Click to expand...

My bad, the question was more about the single X but the side topic quickly became my decision to land. I landed on the first 1000 ft of runway 35 and was off before midfield. Since I was coming from the East I did a fly over and saw the X... not on the side I was landing.

tree96 said:
POA and internet at its finest.
After prudent decision making in this situation;
"I can't believe you weren't skilled enough to land in those x winds"

Reading an accident report in this situation;
"What kind of dipstick tries to land in 19kt crosswinds with a plane only demonstrated at 15 kts? Idiot pilot"

Geez
Click to expand...

That's not only on POA, any internet forum you're going to have that. If I wouldn't of landed I probably would of been called a sissy for not landing... Really all that I learned was that apparently you shouldn't X a runway to repair a taxiway.... and if you do you should have a NOTAM out.
 
Yes, the airport management screwed up. But it really isn't prudent to land when you don't know, even if your guess turns out to be correct later. Now you know the manager is an idiot and the reason may not be so benign next time.

Unless you're having an emergency, you do not need to land there. Mission myopia can be very dangerous.

As for the crosswind, that's a personal minimum. Now add X'd runways to those minimums. The reasons will not always be obvious.
 
Last edited:
tree96 said:
POA and internet at its finest.

After prudent decision making in this situation;

"I can't believe you weren't skilled enough to land in those x winds"



Reading an accident report in this situation;

"What kind of dipstick tries to land in 19kt crosswinds with a plane only demonstrated at 15 kts? Idiot pilot"



Geez
Click to expand...


This. THIS.

Okie, thanks for sharing the story. And I fly a plane with a 25kt demonstrated crosswind component and still would have done the same f$&@ing thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
tree96 said:
POA and internet at its finest.
After prudent decision making in this situation;
"I can't believe you weren't skilled enough to land in those x winds"

Reading an accident report in this situation;
"What kind of dipstick tries to land in 19kt crosswinds with a plane only demonstrated at 15 kts? Idiot pilot"

Geez
Click to expand...

And only one day later:
Its very sad that so many are jumping over this pilots decision to avoid a crosswind, and yesterday we have an accident with a seasoned CFI in what was reported as low to mod crosswinds fatally crashes.
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2008014#post2008014
 
ifly4fun said:
And only one day later:
Its very sad that so many are jumping over this pilots decision to avoid a crosswind, and yesterday we have an accident with a seasoned CFI in what was reported as low to mod crosswinds fatally crashes.
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2008014#post2008014
Click to expand...

Not even related. Most of us were criticizing the OP for his decision to land on a runway w/ an X on it. Poor judgement and totally unnecessary as all he wanted to do was a touch and go. The airport is also at fault for putting that X on the runway when it should have been a displaced threshold so vehicles could use it enroute to the area they needed to be, and a NOTAM issued.

The point being what if it was closed for a reason that could have gotten the OP a violation or more.
 
ifly4fun said:
And only one day later:
Its very sad that so many are jumping over this pilots decision to avoid a crosswind, and yesterday we have an accident with a seasoned CFI in what was reported as low to mod crosswinds fatally crashes.
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2008014#post2008014
Click to expand...

The crosswind discussion was 'post creep' when another poster was calling me a substandard pilot for not learning how to land in a substantial (19 knot+)direct cross wind.

mscard88 said:
Not even related. Most of us were criticizing the OP for his decision to land on a runway w/ an X on it. Poor judgement and totally unnecessary as all he wanted to do was a touch and go. The airport is also at fault for putting that X on the runway when it should have been a displaced threshold so vehicles could use it enroute to the area they needed to be, and a NOTAM issued.

The point being what if it was closed for a reason that could have gotten the OP a violation or more.
Click to expand...

Actually the original post was more about why there would be a single X on a runway. The poor judgement conversation came in as an additional discussion from those who feel any sort of X on a runway completely closes the entire runway... and choosing to do so is an unmitigated risk and should be avoided.

I stand by my discussion that in lieu of another X on the side I was landing (35), NOTAMS, ATIS announcement, moving traffic, visible runway issues after 2 flyovers and during landing that the runway was fair game for a T&G. If I truly thought the runway could of been closed I wouldn't of landed on it.
 
What if the airport hadn't gotten around to putting the X on 35 yet? What if you had your CFI sitting next to you, say on a BFR? Would you have landed say on your check ride, or would you expect the DPE to answer for you? All I am saying is why take the chance and get violated if the runway was in fact closed.

I'm hoping those on POA that are learning to fly don't take what you did, and your logic for doing so, and do something like that too. :yesnod:
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
What if the airport hadn't gotten around to putting the X on 35 yet? What if you had your CFI sitting next to you, say on a BFR? Would you have landed say on your check ride, or would you expect the DPE to answer for you? All I am saying is why take the chance and get violated if the runway was in fact closed.
Click to expand...

I would of run through the same logic as I did and be comfortable with that in front of a CFI, DPE, my family, ect. It's a completely sound thought process with all arrows pointing to the Runway being open.

We can throw all sorts of 'what ifs' at the scenario... what if I didn't notice truck taking sandbags to another end... AND the Airport Manager forgot to put the NOTAMs in AND they don't use the ATIS for those types of announcements... AND the runway although visibly in excellent condition had rebar sticking out or a gas/oil spill or some other hazard that would cause me to blow up and isn't visible while landing at 60 knots. That's a lot of 'what ifs' in play to make it a danger to land... although I guess my brakes could of failed AND my rudder cables AND a 50 knot tailwind that could have pushed me 4000 ft into the sandbags flipping me over, igniting the plane causing me to die in a fire....

If the danger is getting a violation then it would be easy to argue that without the proper notifications in place and no documentation supporting a single X on a runway that my actions would be easily defended. In the future if I run into a similar scenario in which there's a question about a particular runway's status then I will go through the same logic and decide to land or not.
 
You don't seem to get that requiring proof of unsafe conditions is not considered competent risk management.

You have some indication that "something" is up, and you don't know what it is. Very few people would agree with you that it's reasonable to assume it's all OK. It's not good ADM.

You simply did not need to land there, period.
 
By the logic being used in this thread, we should never land anywhere. The runway the Op landed on was not closed. (<-- period) The OP even did a low pass and confirmed no hazards on the runway. I'm willing to bet that's more than any of the posters in this thread do in 98.6% of their landings. The OP did nothing wrong. :mad2:
 
Lindberg said:
By the logic being used in this thread, we should never land anywhere. The runway the Op landed on was not closed. (<-- period) The OP even did a low pass and confirmed no hazards on the runway. I'm willing to bet that's more than any of the posters in this thread do in 98.6% of their landings. The OP did nothing wrong. :mad2:
Click to expand...

I suspect many of us would have figured out the sandbag 'X' was marking a displaced threshold and landed normally. Many others would have been uncertain and landed elsewhere. A smaller minority would not have figured out what the 'X' was for, but landed anyway.

Along the same lines, we all do mag checks during our pre-takeoff checklist. If the mag check failed, some of us would have attempted to "burn off" the plugs, and after confirming the problem resolved would fly the airplane. Many others would have deemed the airplane airworthy and terminated the flight attempt. A smaller minority would figure that it was fine, and taken off anyway. Which ADM philosophy would you prefer?
 
Brad Z said:
I suspect many of us would have figured out the sandbag 'X' was marking a displaced threshold and landed normally. Many others would have been uncertain and landed elsewhere. A smaller minority would not have figured out what the 'X' was for, but landed anyway.

Along the same lines, we all do mag checks during our pre-takeoff checklist. If the mag check failed, some of us would have attempted to "burn off" the plugs, and after confirming the problem resolved would fly the airplane. Many others would have deemed the airplane airworthy and terminated the flight attempt. A smaller minority would figure that it was fine, and taken off anyway. Which ADM philosophy would you prefer?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you or I would prefer. People are free to make their own decisions. Not everything in aviation, or anything else, is black and white.
 
Everskyward said:
It doesn't matter what you or I would prefer. People are free to make their own decisions. Not everything in aviation, or anything else, is black and white.
Click to expand...

OK, as an instructor, what would you teach your student?
 
Brad Z said:
OK, as an instructor, what would you teach your student?
Click to expand...
Does it matter?

My initial thought would have been that they were either setting up or taking down the Xs since they don't necessarily appear or disappear at the same time. I probably would not have done a touch-and-go just for the heck of it. That said, I have no problem with someone doing something contrary to what I would have done.
 
MAKG1 said:
You don't seem to get that requiring proof of unsafe conditions is not considered competent risk management.

You have some indication that "something" is up, and you don't know what it is. Very few people would agree with you that it's reasonable to assume it's all OK. It's not good ADM.

You simply did not need to land there, period.
Click to expand...

Actually it's simpler than that. I didn't even need to go to that airport, I didn't need to fly west... actually I didn't need to fly at all. There are very few things I NEED to do in life and a majority of what I do is by want.... and I wanted to land at KHBR USA and saw no compelling reason why I shouldn't.

I accept there are others in disagreement, that view any deviation with great alarm and would abort the landing. Maybe they don't trust the Notams system, maybe they don't trust their eyes... I don't know but if you're not comfortable with it fine... don't land. View me as a naughty unsat rookie pilot but despite my confusion of the sandbagged X on the opposite approach I was completely comfortable with the landing... and apparently I'm not alone in that.

Lindberg said:
By the logic being used in this thread, we should never land anywhere. The runway the Op landed on was not closed. (<-- period) The OP even did a low pass and confirmed no hazards on the runway. I'm willing to bet that's more than any of the posters in this thread do in 98.6% of their landings. The OP did nothing wrong. :mad2:
Click to expand...

This stems from landing on grass strips. Unless it's a fly in with a good number of people landing there who can give some pireps I always do a fly over prior to landing. By some logic I don't need to make these landings either unless there's a 19 knot direct crosswind.
 
This is why we can't have nice things. The internet airplane police, so annoying.
 
I don't think you did anything dangerous as you stated you checked the runway. I do think you landed on a runway that was marked closed and you would have had a hard time explaining your decision to the FAA if something had gone wrong or if you had been reported. You said the X was over the number 17. Simply put it was closed. The fact that the airport management screwed up and marked it wrong doesn't matter... an X means it's closed.

That being said, it's your license, you were the PIC and made your choice. I don't think you put yourself in any extreme danger, so keep flying and having fun!

OkieAviator said:
Actually it's simpler than that. I didn't even need to go to that airport, I didn't need to fly west... actually I didn't need to fly at all.
Click to expand...
 
Lowflynjack said:
I don't think you did anything dangerous as you stated you checked the runway. I do think you landed on a runway that was marked closed and you would have had a hard time explaining your decision to the FAA if something had gone wrong or if you had been reported. You said the X was over the number 17. Simply put it was closed. The fact that the airport management screwed up and marked it wrong doesn't matter... an X means it's closed.

That being said, it's your license, you were the PIC and made your choice. I don't think you put yourself in any extreme danger, so keep flying and having fun!
Click to expand...

17 was closed, or at least marked incorrectly as closed. 35 was not.
 
It looks like the airport manager intended to close a taxiway but instead closed the runway. Stuff happens. If he wanted to close the runway, he would have had to notify the ADO in advance and there would be a NOTAM out.

That said, Runway 17 was closed. Runway 35 was not. If you did your T&G on 35, you did nothing wrong. Personally, I would have passed on landing there at all if I was not comfortable with the crosswind on the other runway. I'm not going to presume to tell you what crosswind you should or should not be comfortable with.
 
Can they close one end of the runway... I've never heard of that. I would assume an X on one end meant the whole runway was closed, but not marked correctly.

AC No: 150/5340-1K: The airport operator places an “X” only at each end of the runway over the runway designation markings or, when required by construction activity, just off the runway end. The “X”is yellow in color and conforms to the dimensions specified in figure 25.

airguy said:
17 was closed, or at least marked incorrectly as closed. 35 was not.
Click to expand...
 
now just where in the world did that dead horse emoticon go, anyway? I thought it was around here somewhere but I see, to have lost it! :)

Actually, by now, what I need it a horse beat into hamburger emoticon.
 
timwinters said:
now just where in the world did that dead horse emoticon go, anyway? I thought it was around here somewhere but I see, to have lost it! :)

Actually, by now, what I need it a horse beat into hamburger emoticon.
Click to expand...

Beating_A_Dead_Horse.gif


Here you go. Though I think the unsubscribe button works just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top