KHBR - Single X on runway

[OkieAviator]

Yesterday afternoon I did a flight just for fun out in Western Oklahoma and back. Since I like to fly to new airports I tend to pick a random one. Yesterday I picked Hobart Regional (KHBR).

As I typically do with new airports I do a fly over just to look at it prior to landing. I had checked Notams and weather, no issues there... however as I was overflying the airport I saw a runway closed big yellow X over 17... but there was no X on the 35 side. Here's a picture of the place-

Seeing that I double checked Notams, ATIS and tried to reach Unicom... nothing. Did a lowish fly over of the runway, looked in tact but saw some construction equipment near the 17 end between the runway and the taxi... nothing was moving. Tried Unicom a few more times and then decided to do a T&G... it's a 5500 foot or so runway so was on and off before the halfway point.

My guess is they're doing some construction at night and maybe forgot to move the X on the 17 side... or maybe they're doing some work on the very far end, explaining the vehicles. Anyhow anyone ever seen a single X on a runway for closure?

 

[Brad Z]

Was there a temporarily displaced threshold?

 

[MAKG1]

I would have used 3 or 21.

 

[OkieAviator]

Was there a temporarily displaced threshold?

Nope, just an X made out of sandbags...

I would have used 3 or 21.

Not with the winds, would of been about a 19 knot direct crosswind.

 

[MAKG1]

Well, you had an indication someone didn't want you landing there, and you don't know why. Maybe it's an error, maybe not.

Just what was your emergency? Land somewhere else. Ignoring an X is easily construed as reckless.

 

[Brad Z]

Well, you had an indication someone didn't want you landing there, and you don't know why. Maybe it's an error, maybe not.

Just what was your emergency? Land somewhere else. Ignoring an X is easily construed as reckless.

I have to agree. You don't know what's out there that caused somebody to go through the trouble of putting down the 'X'.

Also, a 19 kt crosswind might be sporty but not impossible; might even be good practice.

 

[Sac Arrow]

The real question is, does the X mean both ends of the runway are out of service, or just 17?

What would be going through my mind is that these things don't normally appear at both ends of the runway simultaneously. The sandbag crew could well be driving to the other end at the time.

 

[mscard88]

Fortunately for you maybe no one was there to get your tail number. You took a big risk 1) violating a closed runway and 2) injuring someone. I don't why it was closed on 17 and not 35, never have seen that before.

 

[OkieAviator]

Was there a temporarily displaced threshold?

I have to agree. You don't know what's out there that caused somebody to go through the trouble of putting down the 'X'.

Also, a 19 kt crosswind might be sporty but not impossible; might even be good practice.

Have my answer... I also didn't note that 12/30 (Unmarked in the picture) had X's and was closed. The yellow sandbagged X IS being used of a displaced threshold of some type (Although you can't take off from behind it)... this allows them to drive vehicles across 17/35 to work on 12/30 without closing the entire runway. Maybe that's not the Norm for Runway maintenance but that's what they're doing.

Nothing reckless about my choice, I mitigated risks with two fly overs and double checking the Notams... at any point I could of aborted the landing and in the STOL 172 I have full visibility of the runway and condition.

 

[kgruber]

Call the airport manager.

 

[Brad Z]

Have my answer... I also didn't note that 12/30 (Unmarked in the picture) had X's and was closed. The yellow sandbagged X IS being used of a displaced threshold of some type (Although you can't take off from behind it)... this allows them to drive vehicles across 17/35 to work on 12/30 without closing the entire runway. Maybe that's not the Norm for Runway maintenance but that's what they're doing.

Nothing reckless about my choice, I mitigated risks with two fly overs and double checking the Notams... at any point I could of aborted the landing and in the STOL 172 I have full visibility of the runway and condition.

That was my original question and you said "nope".

I still assert that no matter how much caution you believe you took, if there was an 'X' on the runway, and you didn't understand WHY it was there, you should not have continued to land. Double-checking NOTAMs means nothing; they could have just closed the runway due to any number of reasons that are not readily apparent in a fly-over.

 

[rachelk.tailwinds]

What if the person landing was coming straight in on 35. I don't think there's any regulation saying you must fly over every airport you land at. Runway 35 is open and the OP verified NOTAMs and ATIS twice, I'm with him, there was no harm done here.

As to why they had 17 closed and not 35, did they tell you for fact that it was a displaced threshold? Or was that just your theory now?

 

[petrolero]

That was my original question and you said "nope".

I still assert that no matter how much caution you believe you took, if there was an 'X' on the runway, and you didn't understand WHY it was there, you should not have continued to land. Double-checking NOTAMs means nothing; they could have just closed the runway due to any number of reasons that are not readily apparent in a fly-over.

Not buying it. Double checking NOTAMs is indeed moot since he did a flyover - twice! - and checked it with his eyeballs.

It was only X'd on one end and there was nothing on the runway. The runway was not closed. Just because he doesn't know the reason why there is an X doesn't mean there is some invisible force field on the runway that will kill him. He looked at it. That literally cannot be reckless.

 

[JoeSelch]

Oh brother ...

 

[bflynn]

What if the person landing was coming straight in on 35. I don't think there's any regulation saying you must fly over every airport you land at. Runway 35 is open and the OP verified NOTAMs and ATIS twice, I'm with him, there was no harm done here.

My thought exactly. Someone doing a straight in on 35 would have never known. 35 appears open.

Or since the runway is closed, just land in the grass next to it? You could land in a field next to the airport, right, why not the grass inside the airport?

 

[jimmyjack]

Not buying it. Double checking NOTAMs is indeed moot since he did a flyover - twice! - and checked it with his eyeballs.

It was only X'd on one end and there was nothing on the runway. The runway was not closed. Just because he doesn't know the reason why there is an X doesn't mean there is some invisible force field on the runway that will kill him. He looked at it. That literally cannot be reckless.

I hope you're not serious.

If I was the airport manager and I happened to have my phone/camcorder out, and I videotaped a plane circle the pattern twice and land on a runway that had a SANDBAGGED X on it, I'd forward that tape with a nice close-up of the N number straight to the local FSDO.

Maybe they had just closed it and the notam wasn't uploaded yet.

Maybe they were in the process of closing it and only had time to sandbag one end?

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Not with the winds, would of been about a 19 knot direct crosswind.

Maybe you should consider learning to handle some crosswinds or maybe sound judgement...

 

[RotorDude]

You have two options to avoid consequences: file ASRS, or run for the Senate.

 

[Pilawt]

You sure it didn't look like this ... ?

 

[azpilot]

Wow... No wonder general aviation is dying. The guy tells a little story about what he did, and asks a question and everyone wants to jump down his throat. That'll get lots of new people involved in aviation (he said sarcastically).

 

[cgrab]

Wow, if I was making the same flight I would have made the approach to 35 because of the winds, made the usual pilot controlled arrival calls and did my T+G. I probably never would have seen the sandbags on 17 as I turned back towards home.

 

[OkieAviator]

As to why they had 17 closed and not 35, did they tell you for fact that it was a displaced threshold? Or was that just your theory now?

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.

Maybe you should consider learning to handle some crosswinds or maybe sound judgement...

By your signature I can tell you're a very Elite pilot. Perhaps you forgot what it's like to be a 300 hour pilot flying a STOL 172. As one I'll tell you that given the choice, deciding not to land in 19 knot DIRECT crosswinds is showing very sound judgement.

Wow... No wonder general aviation is dying. The guy tells a little story about what he did, and asks a question and everyone wants to jump down his throat. That'll get lots of new people involved in aviation (he said sarcastically).

It's the interwebs and quite normal. I wouldn't use POA membership as a litmus to the GA Community, out of all the pilots I've met personally I have only met one that posts here.

So in the end my question on this particular X was answered by the airport manager. However I'm also gathering that it's not a common enough activity making it readily obvious and most internet pilots would rather just move on than risk something happening.

Maybe I put too much faith in the Notams system, my eyes or my ability to land a 172 in 5000 ft... but encountered again I would do the same thing.

 

[BigBadLou]

You sure it didn't look like this ... ?

LOL, that's what I thought immediately.

C'mon people, lighten up, no metal was bent, nobody was hurt, heck there were no workers on/near the rwy.
I would assume (like others) that there was work done on the rwy overnight and they simply forgot to remove the X from one end of the rwy. It is a logical assumption.

 

[azpilot]

It's the interwebs and quite normal. I wouldn't use POA membership as a litmus to the GA Community, out of all the pilots I've met personally I have only met one that posts here.

So in the end my question on this particular X was answered by the airport manager. However I'm also gathering that it's not a common enough activity making it readily obvious and most internet pilots would rather just move on than risk something happening.

Maybe I put too much faith in the Notams system, my eyes or my ability to land a 172 in 5000 ft... but encountered again I would do the same thing.

Fair points.

So, just to be clear, the X you saw on Runway 17 was intended to be a temporary displaced threshold? Is that correct?

 

[OkieAviator]

Fair points.

So, just to be clear, the X you saw on Runway 17 was intended to be a temporary displaced threshold? Is that correct?

The manager didn't use that term, just said the taxi way was closed, but the runway was open.

 

[mscard88]

The manager didn't use that term, just said the taxi way was closed, but the runway was open.

The manager evidently doesn't realize that the taxiway does not continue on/through runway 17. There should have been a temporary displaced threshold, AND A NOTAM, instead of the X which everyone I would think agrees means a closed runway. So airport management is at fault for that.

I still think you shouldn't have landed or done a T&G as you admit you didn't know the whole story at the time you did your T&G. As far as 35 I probably would have landed myself as long as I didn't know about the X on 17. My opinion and what I would advise a student, or any pilot.

 

[evapilotaz]

Should of made the approach to 17 and saw the Yellow X and Pulled the Chute.

 

[rachelk.tailwinds]

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.

Gotcha, well it was a pretty good theory on your part then. I wonder why they didn't just paint on a displaced threshold because I certainly wouldn't expect any other airport to go about it that way.

 

[BillTIZ]

I would have used 3 or 21.

 

[BillTIZ]

Not with the winds, would of been about a 19 knot direct crosswind.

So what's wrong with that?
Great day to practice those crosswinds.
Someday that may be your only runway available with a 20knt crosswind.

 

[BillTIZ]

Have my answer... I also didn't note that 12/30 (Unmarked in the picture) had X's and was closed. The yellow sandbagged X IS being used of a displaced threshold of some type (Although you can't take off from behind it)... this allows them to drive vehicles across 17/35 to work on 12/30 without closing the entire runway. Maybe that's not the Norm for Runway maintenance but that's what they're doing.

Nothing reckless about my choice, I mitigated risks with two fly overs and double checking the Notams... at any point I could of aborted the landing and in the STOL 172 I have full visibility of the runway and condition.

There should have been a NOTAM for the declared displaced threshold.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

By your signature I can tell you're a very Elite pilot. Perhaps you forgot what it's like to be a 300 hour pilot flying a STOL 172. As one I'll tell you that given the choice, deciding not to land in 19 knot DIRECT crosswinds is showing very sound judgement.

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

 

[KA550]

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

Amen. Very well said.

 

[RotorDude]

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

Leaving aside the issue of landing on a semi-X'ed runway, I have to take issue with your comment regarding landing with a 19 kt crosswind component. Most light plane manufacturers don't test their planes at much higher than 15 kts (aka "maximum demonstrated crosswind limit"), so if you land outside that limit you are your own test pilot.
Also, having landed mine a few times with crosswinds in the high teens or more, I can tell you that in some planes you run out of rudder authority with those crosswinds and can't take out the crab completely before touchdown (at reasonable touchdown speeds), which means you are forced to either go around (which might be prudent) or land with a sideload, which many planes and gears do not appreciate.
Of course, that number "19 kts" is not etched in stone, and might well be higher (or lower) when you are on short final.
So if we are talking about prudent pilot action in this case, going somewhere else might be the best choice, not forcing the plane to land outside its design limits to prove you are man enough.

 

[Lindberg]

It isn't clear to me what's going on here. People are bashing the OP who did nothing wrong, even after he confirmed that with the airport manager, for having bad judgment. At the same time, he's being denigrated for not wanting to land in a 19kt crosswind in a ship that probably has a max demonstrated crosswind closer to 15kt.

 

[mscard88]

You need to reread his post. He didn't talk to the manager until AFTER he did the deed. You're welcome.

 

[Everskyward]

It isn't clear to me what's going on here. People are bashing the OP who did nothing wrong, even after he confirmed that with the airport manager, for having bad judgment. At the same time, he's being denigrated for not wanting to land in a 19kt crosswind in a ship that probably has a max demonstrated crosswind closer to 15kt.

This. The OP explained in subsequent posts what was going on after speaking with the airport manager. Also, why chastise someone for making a conservative decision regarding the crosswind. We have been seeing a lot of that here lately. Just because you might do something doesn't mean you should be shaming others into doing it too if they think it's outside their ability.

Have my answer... I also didn't note that 12/30 (Unmarked in the picture) had X's and was closed. The yellow sandbagged X IS being used of a displaced threshold of some type (Although you can't take off from behind it)... this allows them to drive vehicles across 17/35 to work on 12/30 without closing the entire runway. Maybe that's not the Norm for Runway maintenance but that's what they're doing.

Nothing reckless about my choice, I mitigated risks with two fly overs and double checking the Notams... at any point I could of aborted the landing and in the STOL 172 I have full visibility of the runway and condition.

 

[Lindberg]

You need to reread his post. He didn't talk to the manager until AFTER he did the deed. You're welcome.

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.

 

[Brad Z]

Not buying it. Double checking NOTAMs is indeed moot since he did a flyover - twice! - and checked it with his eyeballs.

It was only X'd on one end and there was nothing on the runway. The runway was not closed. Just because he doesn't know the reason why there is an X doesn't mean there is some invisible force field on the runway that will kill him. He looked at it. That literally cannot be reckless.

He didn't know for sure it wasn't closed. How would he spot protruding rebar, a tire swallowing pothole, or heaving pavement, or a fresh (and still curing) patch in the runway? Talk to your friendly airport manager and they'll tell you: there's a lot of reasons that a runway could be closed that aren't readily apparent.

This is sort of like the old " I was in the pattern at a busy towered field and the controller never cleared me to land, but he was so busy that I went ahead and landed anyway because the runway was clear". Yeah, you'll probably get away with it, but is it good decision making? Would you do the same with a DPE on board?

 

[mscard88]

Yeah, you'll probably get away with it, but is it good decision making? Would you do the same with a DPE on board?

This! Why take the chance and even use that runway in question is what is beyond me.