Landed on closed runway

Chrisgoesflying said:
In the Piper what I usually do is, engine start, run-up and takeoff on the fullest tank. If both are the same, I just pick one and then keep flying on that tank until one hour total since engine start. Then I switch to the other tank, stay on it for an hour.
Click to expand...

How do you know that the second tank will feed?

My Mooney POH checklist has you start and taxi on one tank, then switch for the runup. So you know both are feeding.
 
The X is on the grass so the paving machines can pave the entire runway.

Usually, this means that the closure will be short, contractor in, paving done, and out in a day or two.
 
jkgoblue said:
Am I missing something here but if the runway was closed shouldn’t the X’s be on the runway? The X’s being on the grass near the runway might be there for when they plan on closing the runway. Since it wasn’t NOTAMed closed and there are no exes on the runway, was it really closed?
Click to expand...

The X's get moved off the ends if they would be in the way of the work occurring on the runway, such as paving. They should not be present at all if the runway is open, there is no "planning" to close situation as such.
 
EdFred said:
Comanche with 4 tanks. Fuel selector is independent per side, so I can pull fuel from both sides at the same time.
I do fuel management one of two ways:

#1)
Take off on a singular main tank, top of climb switch to L-Tip and R-Tip and burn off those for 2+ hours until they dry tank.
Switch back to takeoff tank and burn for just under an hour. Switch to other main and dry tank it. At this point I've been in the air for almost 6 hours and still have 1.2 hours in the tank.

#2)
Take off on singular main tank, top of climb switch to L-Tip and R-Tip and then keep shutting tanks on and off to keep the plane from wanting to bank one way or another too much. Land with 400nm or more of fuel in the tanks and pretty much don't worry about fuel management, because I had to pee after 3 hours in the air anyway.
Click to expand...

That is a little different in the Comanche with tip tanks versus the Comanche with the integral aux tanks. Our Comanche fuel selector can only be on one of the 4 tanks (L and R Main, L and R Aux) at any given time.

My method is to taxi, take-off and climb on a main tank up until 30 minutes run time, then switch to the opposite Aux tank for 1 one (empty), then the other Aux tank for 1 hour, the alternate the mains every hour until landing. The airplane has 6 hours usable fuel, and I'm usually maxxed out at 5 hours personally.

If it is less than a two hour flight, I'll leave the Aux tanks empty and just fill the mains. That still gives 4 hours range, leaving me easily 1+ hour reserve.
 
Pinecone said:
How do you know that the second tank will feed?

My Mooney POH checklist has you start and taxi on one tank, then switch for the runup. So you know both are feeding.
Click to expand...

I don’t until I switch in the air that’s why I make sure I’m over an airport on my first switch or within reach of an airport with what’s left in the initial tank. Starting up on one tank and then switching to the other for run up wouldn’t confirm that both tanks are feeding. My airport is uncontrolled. Startup and taxi to the run up area is so short, I could do that journey with just the fuel I put in the engine with prime. I actually tried it out, I primed the engine, left the tanks off, started up the engine and taxied to the fuel pumps (which are even further away than the run up area) and had no issues. Engine kept on running hence starting on one and then doing the run up on the other won’t confirm anything other than that the tank I did the run up on feeds alright.

If I ever had a flight path that would not allow safe return to an airport on the initial tank after the first switch, I’d probably have to do something different but I haven’t come across such a scenario yet.
 
geezer said:
The X is on the grass so the paving machines can pave the entire runway.

Usually, this means that the closure will be short, contractor in, paving done, and out in a day or two.
Click to expand...
Often with new markings taking another day or two.
 
Years ago was going to a hockey game in Glendale AZ from Texas (Pre-Foreflight). Airport closed by Notam AFTER I was airborne. Was on flight following and the awesome ATC guy told me as much LONG before I got near the Arizona line basically stating," your destination just closed, possible non-injury landing incident ... if you slow down a little it should re-open so you don't need to go to an alternate" ... he was exactly correct!
 
Lots of talk about tank selection and such. In my 182 I look down and verify it’s just as I left it (on both) then run up, take off, and fly till I need a break. In 2 and a half years I’ve never needed to switch tanks. High wings for the win! Lol.
 
AlphaMike said:
Lots of talk about tank selection and such. In my 182 I look down and verify it’s just as I left it (on both) then run up, take off, and fly till I need a break. In 2 and a half years I’ve never needed to switch tanks. High wings for the win! Lol.
Click to expand...
Every time I've tried to fit 5 or 6 adults in a 182, the back seat passengers always complain when I tell them to "double buckle". Less complaints in my low wing :D. In all seriousness, I do like high wings, unfortunately nothing quite got the job done like a Six (leg room, should room, cargo capacity, price, etc.). So therefore I'm stuck with switching between 4 tanks and needing a boost pump.
 
1000RR said:
Every time I've tried to fit 5 or 6 adults in a 182, the back seat passengers always complain when I tell them to "double buckle". Less complaints in my low wing :D. In all seriousness, I do like high wings, unfortunately nothing quite got the job done like a Six (leg room, should room, cargo capacity, price, etc.). So therefore I'm stuck with switching between 4 tanks and needing a boost pump.
Click to expand...
.
Cessna 210 for the win again!
 
AlphaMike said:
Lots of talk about tank selection and such. In my 182 I look down and verify it’s just as I left it (on both) then run up, take off, and fly till I need a break. In 2 and a half years I’ve never needed to switch tanks. High wings for the win! Lol.
Click to expand...

To be fair, that really is ONE benefit of a high wing. Unfortunately for high wings, the benefits end right there. Low wings for the win! And another thread that veered off into the low wing vs high wing debate.
 
AlphaMike said:
.
Cessna 210 for the win again!
Click to expand...
Not exactly... I looked at the 6 seaters Cessna had and either they were retract (didn't meet my requiremes), the back 2 seats only fit kids (again, didn't meet requirements), or were more expensive... again a fail.
 
It’s my opinion, as an engineer, low wing guys are form over function. High wing guys are definitely functional over form. I’ve flown in both, there is no arguing! It’s not a debate. Simply put high wing GA is better then low wing….. signed trolling, instigator, factual guy. 2 doors too! Okay! Give up!
 
AlphaMike said:
It’s my opinion, as an engineer, low wing guys are form over function. High wing guys are definitely functional over form. I’ve flown in both, there is no arguing! It’s not a debate. Simply put high wing GA is better then low wing….. signed trolling, instigator, factual guy. 2 doors too! Okay! Give up!
Click to expand...
LOL, back to your regular scheduled program...
 
AlphaMike said:
It’s my opinion, as an engineer, low wing guys are form over function. High wing guys are definitely functional over form. I’ve flown in both, there is no arguing! It’s not a debate. Simply put high wing GA is better then low wing….. signed trolling, instigator, factual guy. 2 doors too! Okay! Give up!
Click to expand...

*sits back and watches you try to fill the tanks without a ladder*
 
1296? That's it? I've got over 1,300 in the comanche. And it'll run away with without even trying. Low wings for the win!
 
AlphaMike said:
It’s my opinion, as an engineer,....
Click to expand...


You must be a software engineer, no? Microsoft, no doubt?

After all, you don’t see Lockheed building high-wing F16s or F22s, do you? North American didn’t put the wings on top of the P51, did they?

The love for high-wing aircraft is a result of clobbering one’s head on the wing too many times and receiving brain damage.
 
Half Fast said:
You must be a software engineer, no? Microsoft, no doubt?

After all, you don’t see Lockheed building high-wing F16s or F22s, do you? North American didn’t put the wings on top of the P51, did they?

The love for high-wing aircraft is a result of clobbering one’s head on the wing too many times and receiving brain damage.
Click to expand...

Try landing a F16 or F22 or P51 on a 1500' by 25' grass strip .... different mission different design.
 
AlphaMike said:
Try landing a F16 or F22 or P51 on a 1500' by 25' grass strip .... different mission different design.
Click to expand...


Can be done with an F35 landing vertically, and it has the wings in the proper location.

Still recovering from that wing-induced concussion?

;)
 
Half Fast said:
Can be done with an F35 landing vertically, and it has the wings in the proper location.

Still recovering from that wing-induced concussion?

;)
Click to expand...

f35.jpg
f35.jpg
 
Low wing F35? hmm maybe your dizzy from laying on your back summing the tanks?
 
Half Fast said:
...that isn’t a high-wing.
Click to expand...

So you low guys are clamming anything that's not High class? I can see that... Now, get off your hands and knees, dust yourself off (pre flight is done) and lets all just go flying :)

One more thing... back on topic, try not to land on a closed runway,,,,,, such a low wing move.. LOL
 
Last edited:
Notam buster said:
That's the thing. I packed for the trip via Foreflight on wifi. One closed airport showed up in the air. The next closest airport was closed as well but did not show on Foreflight. Once on the ground I checked the notams and it was in fact listed closed. None of the 3 airports that had things going on were part of the planned trip. I do have adsb in via stratus. But I don't think that gives notams. But I THOUGHT I should have got them when I packed via Foreflight. It's weird 1 showed up and the others didn't. Once I got wifi again the 2nd closed airport was shown closed on it.

When we fueled up it took 60 some gallons, which means a little over an hour of remaining fuel. But being unfamiliar, I trusted the old style gauges over noted times on each tank. Unfamiliarity told me to play it safe than sorry and not risk trying to get to the next airport.
Click to expand...
Better safe than a forced landing in unfamiliar territory. When you're down that low you don't want to be gambling on just how much Useable Fuel is left in the tanks and who knows if the next 3 closest AP's would have proven to be closed had you diverted to them?

No system is perfect, as long as you did your part you should be ok even if you do get a nasty letter for making the landing.
 
danhagan said:
Our field has had serious runway work twice .... both times taxi way Alpha became the main runway for months (Notamed as such also with a weight limit like 15000 or some such) ... here's what it looked like ....

Click to expand...
Dona Ana Range? Man that brings back some memories!
 
I am confused as to why you did not land at the airport with the aerobatic box active. It’s not a big deal and if you had some confusion you should have asked on the radio. A simple call that you were a diversion aircraft and needed to land should have resolved any issues. Sounds like they had a open runway anyway with the box active.
 
Jeff767 said:
I am confused as to why you did not land at the airport with the aerobatic box active. It’s not a big deal and if you had some confusion you should have asked on the radio. A simple call that you were a diversion aircraft and needed to land should have resolved any issues. Sounds like they had a open runway anyway with the box active.
Click to expand...

He was shortchanged in his training by his CFI(s).
 
Jeff767 said:
I am confused as to why you did not land at the airport with the aerobatic box active. It’s not a big deal and if you had some confusion you should have asked on the radio. A simple call that you were a diversion aircraft and needed to land should have resolved any issues. Sounds like they had a open runway anyway with the box active.
Click to expand...

EdFred said:
He was shortchanged in his training by his CFI(s).
Click to expand...

We have an acro box and a sky diving box south of the field ... the only restriction is not to try and fly THROUGH it ... as ED said, his CFI should have gone over these types of situations ...
 
If you landed successfully and the plane was fine and you didn't hit anyone or anything, was the runway really closed after all?
 
Just encountered the perfect scenario to reinforce my statement that as a pilot you don't know why the runway is closed. Just came across a runway that was closed, due to the discovery of a sinkhole forming under the pavement. From the air, or even from the ground, you would be hard pressed to see anything, but if you taxied over this spot you would find it the hard way. In talking to others, this also happened at another airport a couple of years ago, both caused by a faulty storm drain pipe running under the runway that eroded away the base material. The dirt is gone, but the pavement bridges the gap...for a little while.

But go ahead, ignore those pesky X's, you are smarter than the folks running the airport.
 
The strange part is bypassing the second airport that was open and choosing to fly and land at a closed airport.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top