To what extent would you obey this NOTAM?

ebykowsky

ebykowsky

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
1,405
Display Name
Display name:
goalstop
!AOO 04/072 PJC RWY 17 CLSD NGT LDG
Supposedly, there's a small unlit obstacle off runway center that is close enough to the glide slope to make them either have to displace the threshold or close the runway. Not wanting to spend money and lose jet traffic simultaneously, the airport opted for the latter. So, this is an untowered single strip airport (and my home base). At what point would you disregard this NOTAM? Obey at all costs? Only disobey in a certain amount of tailwind? Or screw it: what do the Feds know?
Runway is 4.5k ft.
 
To rephrase the question: "What can I get away with?"

Sigh.
 
We are dealing with airport / runway closures for maintenance. We have been advised we could use the taxi way if no one is around. :lol:


:eek:

Luckily we have a grass runway also, but we can't even get to it unless we have a tow due to rocks and tar scrapings.


I'll just wait til it is done. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
If the NOTAM doesn't apply to you, who does it apply to?

Any reason you couldn't land on 35 if the winds were amiable?
 
A chainsaw or a torch needed to remove the unlit obstacle?

Only Rwy 17 is closed at night for landings, departure is ok, and depending on the aircraft, downwind landings on 35 is ok?

I know the Pawnee is tough to land in more than 5 knots of tailwind. It just quits flying before you want it to.
 
If you are a U.S. Senator then you may land on closed runways. Otherwise I wouldn't recommend the practice.
 
Lose night jet traffic? A displaced threshold on 17 is better than no 17 landings at night.
The jet can still land on 35 in either case. Displace the threshold for 17, but still allow full length 35 landings. No issues.
 
Gotcha. My main thought was for coming back from an xc at night... find a 15-20kt direct tailwind on 35. I guess the smartest thing to do is land at the next nearest airport. I've taken 35 with about 8-10kts tailwind and don't want to risk too much more than 15, especially at night.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
How would you respond to a letter of investigation after the fact? "Oh, that one doesn't apply to me."

91.13 trumps all.
Click to expand...

"My engine was running a teensy bit rough."

or

"I was landing on the half marked 35."
 
Last edited:
ebykowsky said:
!AOO 04/072 PJC RWY 17 CLSD NGT LDG
Supposedly, there's a small unlit obstacle off runway center that is close enough to the glide slope to make them either have to displace the threshold or close the runway. Not wanting to spend money and lose jet traffic simultaneously, the airport opted for the latter. So, this is an untowered single strip airport (and my home base). At what point would you disregard this NOTAM? Obey at all costs? Only disobey in a certain amount of tailwind? Or screw it: what do the Feds know?
Runway is 4.5k ft.
Click to expand...

Why is the obstacle not lighted? Why no NOTAM for an unlighted obstacle? The threshold is already displaced, leaving 4382' for landing.
 
roncachamp said:
Why is the obstacle not lighted? Why no NOTAM for an unlighted obstacle? The threshold is already displaced, leaving 4382' for landing.
Click to expand...

No idea. That's just what the old timers at the airport said it was for... the lighting at night appears to be sufficient from that direction as well, and takeoffs are permitted.
 
ebykowsky said:
No idea. That's just what the old timers at the airport said it was for... the lighting at night appears to be sufficient from that direction as well, and takeoffs are permitted.
Click to expand...

Check with the airport manager and get the real story, then get back to us. You may find that they'll be able to do something for smaller aircraft at night. Or, you may find that it's for a completely different reason than the old-timers say.

You probably also want to know exactly what it's for before you disobey at night, should you decide to do so, including exactly which obstacle, including flying past it during the day to see how close/far it really is.

Or maybe do the easier thing and just obey it. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Check with the airport manager and get the real story, then get back to us. You may find that they'll be able to do something for smaller aircraft at night. Or, you may find that it's for a completely different reason than the old-timers say.

You probably also want to know exactly what it's for before you disobey at night, should you decide to do so, including exactly which obstacle, including flying past it during the day to see how close/far it really is.

Or maybe do the easier thing and just obey it. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...


This is what we were just told to do. Even though it is officially closed, the AP Manager may assist for day ops.
 
Geico266 said:
This is what we were just told to do. Even though it is officially closed, the AP Manager may assist for day ops.
Click to expand...

The NOTAM only closes the runway at night.
Day ops are not an issue.
 
If they can close the whole runway in one direction only for night landings, then they could also make a displaced threshold only active for night landings by NOTAM as well.
 
The whole KASE airport is closed at night by NOTAM. I'm not seeing the problem here.
 
Neal Howard said:
If they can close the whole runway in one direction only for night landings, then they could also make a displaced threshold only active for night landings by NOTAM as well.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking. Move the lights, not the paint.
 
JimNtexas said:
If you are a U.S. Senator then you may land on closed runways. Otherwise I wouldn't recommend the practice.
Click to expand...
Concur. Unless you contact airport management and find out, you have no idea why it's closed for landings at night. Absent that knowledge, I can see the FAA considering you reckless for disregarding that NOTAM. Not to mention you might run into whatever the reason is and have a really bad night.
 
If one had an accident landing at night, would the insurance company pay?
 
TexasPilot71 said:
So even NOTAM(D)s aren't regulatory in nature, FAA can still get you for "careless and reckless" because you failed to heed what is in essence, "a suggestion" (since it is non-regulatory). That's just wrong on so many levels.
Click to expand...
"Runway closed" is not a "suggestion", it's a statement of fact. If you are aware of facts which tell you something is hazardous but you do it anyway, you are being "reckless" by any legal standard you can find.

FDC NOTAMs are regulatory, in that they change regulatory procedures (e.g., the approach procedures which are part of Part 97. Doing something contrary to an FDC NOTAM is thus in and of itself a violation of an FAR. NOTAM(D)'s are not regulatory in nature, but present factual information for the pilot to consider, such as runway closures, absence of fuel, lighting outages, etc. What the pilot does with that information is up to the pilot, but when a pilot is aware of facts presented in the NOTAM(D)'s and chooses do something risky anyway, that is "reckless" in the FAA's eyes.

Administrator v. Szabo, NTSB Order No. EA-4265 at 4 (1994) ("innumerable Board cases make clear that no more than potential endangerment is required to find a violation of section [91.13(a)]");
Click to expand...
Haines v. Department of Transp., 449 F.2d 1073, 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1971) ("What is more important is that, in the judgment of the Board, potential danger was unnecessarily presented, and this is sufficient to support a finding that the regulation was violated…. Proof of actual danger is unnecessary, for the regulation prohibits any careless or reckless practice in which danger is inherent.")
Click to expand...
Administrator v. Lorenz. Complainant’s argument that the FAA did not allege "potential" endangerment in the complaint is unavailing. Long-standing precedent holds that potential endangerment is sufficient to prove a violation of FAR section 91.13(a),
Click to expand...
It's hard to imagine a pilot successfully arguing there is no "potential endangerment" in landing on a closed runway at night.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
"Runway closed" is not a "suggestion", it's a statement of fact. If you are aware of facts which tell you something is hazardous but you do it anyway, you are being "reckless" by any legal standard you can find.

FDC NOTAMs are regulatory, in that they change regulatory procedures (e.g., the approach procedures which are part of Part 97. Doing something contrary to an FDC NOTAM is thus in and of itself a violation of an FAR. NOTAM(D)'s are not regulatory in nature, but present factual information for the pilot to consider, such as runway closures, absence of fuel, lighting outages, etc. What the pilot does with that information is up to the pilot, but when a pilot is aware of facts presented in the NOTAM(D)'s and chooses do something risky anyway, that is "reckless" in the FAA's eyes.




It's hard to imagine a pilot successfully arguing there is no "potential endangerment" in landing on a closed runway at night.
Click to expand...


And what "life or property of another" would be endangered?
 
EdFred said:
And what "life or property of another" would be endangered?
Click to expand...
At the risk of responding to a trolling post, we can start with the airport owner's runway lights you destroy when you run off the runway. In any event, the courts and the NTSB have never been very picky about that part.
 
Ron Levy said:
At the risk of responding to a trolling post, we can start with the airport owner's runway lights you destroy when you run off the runway. In any event, the courts and the NTSB have never been very picky about that part.
Click to expand...

Objection: Presents facts not in evidence.
 
Ron Levy said:
"Runway closed" is not a "suggestion", it's a statement of fact. If you are aware of facts which tell you something is hazardous but you do it anyway, you are being "reckless" by any legal standard you can find.

FDC NOTAMs are regulatory, in that they change regulatory procedures (e.g., the approach procedures which are part of Part 97. Doing something contrary to an FDC NOTAM is thus in and of itself a violation of an FAR. NOTAM(D)'s are not regulatory in nature, but present factual information for the pilot to consider, such as runway closures, absence of fuel, lighting outages, etc. What the pilot does with that information is up to the pilot, but when a pilot is aware of facts presented in the NOTAM(D)'s and chooses do something risky anyway, that is "reckless" in the FAA's eyes.




It's hard to imagine a pilot successfully arguing there is no "potential endangerment" in landing on a closed runway at night.
Click to expand...

Given that 91.113 does not say "so as to potentially endanger the life or property of another," those three cases do a good job of illustrating that the NTSB is a kangaroo court. There is no careless or reckless act that does not "potentially" cause endangerment to the life or property of another. That renders the qualiier "so as to endanger the life or property of another" meaningless, and my understanding is that appeals courts have historically frowned on interpretations that render part of the language in a law or regulation meaningless.
 
Ron Levy said:
"Runway closed" is not a "suggestion", it's a statement of fact. If you are aware of facts which tell you something is hazardous but you do it anyway, you are being "reckless" by any legal standard you can find.

FDC NOTAMs are regulatory, in that they change regulatory procedures (e.g., the approach procedures which are part of Part 97. Doing something contrary to an FDC NOTAM is thus in and of itself a violation of an FAR. NOTAM(D)'s are not regulatory in nature, but present factual information for the pilot to consider, such as runway closures, absence of fuel, lighting outages, etc. What the pilot does with that information is up to the pilot, but when a pilot is aware of facts presented in the NOTAM(D)'s and chooses do something risky anyway, that is "reckless" in the FAA's eyes.




It's hard to imagine a pilot successfully arguing there is no "potential endangerment" in landing on a closed runway at night.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...

Let's look at this with the shoe on the "other" foot.....

The FAA issues a NOTAM saying there is a known HAZARD to aviation navigation and the FAA does NOTHING to rectify the situation.. Who is really negligent ??:dunno::dunno:;)...............:D
 
N801BH said:
Hmmm...

Let's look at this with the shoe on the "other" foot.....

The FAA issues a NOTAM saying there is a known HAZARD to aviation navigation and the FAA does NOTHING to rectify the situation.. Who is really negligent ??:dunno::dunno:;)...............:D
Click to expand...

I'd have to go with the owner of that hazard.
 
Ron Levy said:
I was right -- trolling. Bye.
Click to expand...

So you can't answer the question. So noted.

Scenario: Uneventful landing, but we have a Ron Levy wannabe hanging out at the airport. Guy lands on 17 w/o incident, but the wannabe at the airport calls it in, and has it on video, because, well, he loves everything the FAA stands for, and would never, ever, claim they might be mistaken at some point.

No damage, no broken lights. How did 91.13 affect the life or property of another?


Hey Ron, I've landed at an unlit grass strip twice at night. I can give you the dates if you want to call the FAA on me for a 91.13 violation. I know you're itching to get me out of the air.
 
Palmpilot said:
Given that 91.113 does not say "so as to potentially endanger the life or property of another," those three cases do a good job of illustrating that the NTSB is a kangaroo court. There is no careless or reckless act that does not "potentially" cause endangerment to the life or property of another. That renders the qualiier "so as to endanger the life or property of another" meaningless, and my understanding is that appeals courts have historically frowned on interpretations that render part of the language in a law or regulation meaningless.
Click to expand...

By that same token even flying normally has the potential to potentially endanger the life or property of another. We are all in violation of 91.13 every time we fly.
 
EdFred said:
So you can't answer the question. So noted.

Scenario: Uneventful landing, but we have a Ron Levy wannabe hanging out at the airport. Guy lands on 17 w/o incident, but the wannabe at the airport calls it in, and has it on video, because, well, he loves everything the FAA stands for, and would never, ever, claim they might be mistaken at some point.

No damage, no broken lights. How did 91.13 affect the life or property of another?


Hey Ron, I've landed at an unlit grass strip twice at night. I can give you the dates if you want to call the FAA on me for a 91.13 violation. I know you're itching to get me out of the air.
Click to expand...

Whoa. A Ron Levy wannabe. Creepy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top