He's an example where the guy declared an emergency situation but was still at fault for violating the FARs. While landing at a closed airport might not be a direct violation of the FARs it still shows that his enroute airport selection was poor and possibly that his wx planning might not have complied with FAR 91.103. It think it's safe to say as pilots the courts are rarely on our side in these events.
In a recent NTSB ruling, the emergency deviation rule didn't prevent suspension of the pilot's license for failure to establish radio communication before entering Class D airspace. The pilot was operating a Bell 206 LongRanger helicopter in marginal VFR conditions, on a flight to Wings Airfield near Philadelphia, when he inadvertently entered the Willow Grove Naval Air Station Class D airspace. He claimed he mistook it for Wings until he saw military aircraft on the ground, at which time he contacted the Willow Grove tower.
The FAA charged him with violation of FAR 91.129(c)(1), failure to establish and maintain two-way radio communication before entering Class D airspace. The pilot asserted that his "entry into that airspace was unintentional and inadvertent," and "was a result of an emergency situation." He attributed the "emergency situation" to the inclement weather in the airspace and contended that the weather caused him to become disoriented. The pilot asserted that he acted reasonably under the circumstances: upon recognizing the airport as Willow Grove, he established "immediate two-way radio communication with that facility, advised them of his situation, requested and obtained a telephone number from them in order to furnish the details of his situation and, having then reoriented himself, promptly left the area, without landing."
The trial judge ruled that the pilot's entry into Class D airspace was impermissible, and that he failed to both establish and maintain ATC communications. The judge found that the incursion occurred prior to the pilot's establishment of ATC communications, and that he didn't establish contact until he was over the taxiway.
With regard to the pilot's assertion that an "emergency situation" justified his incursion into Class D airspace, the law judge concluded that the circumstances didn't excuse the pilot's violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.129(c)(1). Any emergency that occurred was the result of the pilot's own actions. Moreover, the pilot didn't take appropriate steps to reduce the risk of an incursion. Weather forecast information available before the flight indicated flying conditions would be marginal, with only "a mile and a half visibility," indicating that VFR flights would've been inappropriate. Given the marginal weather conditions, the FAA inspector testified that the pilot was obligated to "keep emergency options open ... if he was going to proceed along the route of flight that he was talking about."
In discussing the pilot's use of Willow Grove as an emergency diversion airfield, the FAA inspector testified that the pilot "should have had a contingency plan." The pilot's failure to have such a plan indicated his lack of preparedness and his failure to maintain "proper awareness of where he was, so he could use the plan if he needed it."
The court found that the pilot hadn't met his burden of proving that emergency conditions caused his lack of preparedness and awareness. The record indicated that he was likely on a tight schedule, and as a result, determined the marginal weather conditions were satisfactory. When conditions deteriorated in all directions, he began maneuvering around the weather, became disoriented and inadvertently proceeded into the Class D airspace. Based on this record, the court said, an appropriate flight plan would've helped the respondent avoid this situation; therefore, no emergency existed pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 91.3.
On appeal, the NTSB upheld a 45-day suspension.
