Timeline for Should landing on a runway that has been closed by NOTAM be a violation of the FARs?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 18, 2018 at 20:16 | comment | added | user22445 | no debate from me. My question was prompted from another forum where a controller was talking about using the phraseology "land at your own risk" on the occasion a pilot wanted to land on a closed (yellow X on the runway) runway because of difficult wind conditions. The case you reference has many elements (people working, etc.) that may have contributed to the ultimate outcome (violation). But I guess I am looking for a general response from this community as to whether or not landing on a closed runway, in and of itself, should be a violation. | |
| Feb 18, 2018 at 20:04 | comment | added | Pondlife | @757toga Well, you asked if landing on a closed runway should be a violation. I think the best answer is: the FAA and NTSB say "it already is", AOPA says "only if there's endangerment". If you had asked "is it a violation?" then the answer would be "yes" because that's the FAA's position today, at least based on what I could find out. I'm not sure if that answers your question or not, because "should" questions are usually asking for opinions. But my personal opinion is pretty worthless compared to the FAA's :-) | |
| Feb 18, 2018 at 19:48 | comment | added | user22445 | @Pondlife-good comment. But after reading the AOPA's analysis of the case you refer to in the link above ("it isn't a violation per se") the Full NTSB Board sustained the FAA's position that it was a violation. The additional comments in the article regarding 91.13, from my perspective, are alluding to the normal use by the FAA of 91.13 as a "residual" violation added as a result of another regulation (other than 91.13) being violated. Perhaps my point is more a semantic characterization. | |
| Feb 18, 2018 at 19:13 | history | answered | Pondlife | CC BY-SA 3.0 |