legal to takeoff from closed airport

[noslonlo]

I am at an airport that is closed from 4:30pm to 6am local due to construction at the end of the runway. I know that I can "safely" takeoff there, I'm asking if it's "legal". Anyone who could site a source would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

[Art Vandalay]

edit for niceness

 

[MauleSkinner]

It now becomes an "off-airport" operation...it can be made legal, but there's a whole other can of worms there. Insurance/liability issues, probably some state statutes including "permission from the landowner" (that's what it says in MN), county, city, and township statutes...

Fly safe!

David

 

[vclean]

FAR 91.13, for one.

 

[satpak77]

dude

forget "legal"

ask youself, "Will Insurance Pay if something happens"

there is your answer

as far as FAA Chief Counsel opinion, I don't have it, but you can bet that fresh CFI ticket that if it is NOTAM'ed closed, you can be charged with Careless and Reckless operation.

If it was an air ambulance flight with a dying baby onboard and it was 2 minutes into closed status, and you took off enroute to the hospital (you already determined it was "safe"), thats one thing and the FSDO would look at it as such. But absent life/death circumstances (literally) you do your ticket a favor to not fly when its closed.

 

[A Squared]

FAR 91.13, for one.

It's not inherently reckless. I can land and take off on a 700 ft sandbar in a river (and yes, I have) and it's not reckless, yet to take off from a 5000' (for example) paved runway with the last 50 ft barricaded is reckless? Interesting.

Oh by the way, I have operated from closed runways, with the full knowledge (but not clearence) of the tower. The only thing the tower said was " takeoff/landing will be at your own risk " which of course they all are anyway.

 

[satpak77]

It's not inherently reckless. I can land and take off on a 700 ft sandbar in a river (and yes, I have) and it's not reckless, yet to take off from a 5000' (for example) paved runway with the last 50 ft barricaded is reckless? Interesting.

What I would be concerned with is the FAA interpretation of the operations in question, not anyone elses. They issue the "pass" into this club, called a pilots license, they enforce it and taketh away, not you, me, or the members on this site.

 

[ackattacker]

I'm not sure about his one, but for a part 91 operation I think you'll find it's probably legal to take off. But you're taking a risk, an inspector might be able to throw careless and reckless at you depending upon the circumstances.

I once witnessed a GIII get taxi clearance in a blinding snowstorm. vis was 1/8 mile and snow was accumulating faster than the plows could keep up. The Gulfstream had been deicing for 20 minutes and a half dozen people were shoveling out the wheels because it kept getting stuck, even though plows were plowing right in front of it. The tower eventually came back with "operations has just informed us the field is closed". The GIII pilot had some choice words about how much they just spend on deicing, but he shut down and his VIPs deplaned and drove off in their limo (of course, 10 minutes later the snow stopped and the field reopened).

I later talked to one of the tower controllers. He told me that the plane could still have left legally. (I'm not sure if the tower would coordinate his IFR release, however). He explained that it was a liability issue. Operations closed the field so that they have no legal responsibility for the safety of the runway. And the tower essentially closes so they have no legal responsibility, it becomes an uncontrolled field. The GIII could still have taken off "at his own risk", but in the event of an accident the controllers and airport management would be off the hook.

 

[414Flyer]

I later talked to one of the tower controllers. He told me that the plane could still have left legally. (I'm not sure if the tower would coordinate his IFR release, however). He explained that it was a liability issue. Operations closed the field so that they have no legal responsibility for the safety of the runway. And the tower essentially closes so they have no legal responsibility, it becomes an uncontrolled field. The GIII could still have taken off "at his own risk", but in the event of an accident the controllers and airport management would be off the hook.

I had a similar discussion with a tower controller on this subject. I was coming back into Santa Fe NM after a forest fire Air Attack flight in a Cessna 340, and where the airport had been, all i saw was a big dust cloud there, and ATIS was reporting winds 35-40...

I made one or two attempts to land on the runway with the least crosswind, and went around. On the last attempt, I was able to land it on that same runway, and the controller had mentioned on that attempt, that the closed runway was into the wind, but he could not clear me for it, it was at my own risk if I want to attempt it.

Afterwards I talked to him about and it asked about landing on the closed runway. He said that if someone had to land on it because they did something stupid, then he might very well report it to FAA. But if it was a situation like mine, then he would not have reported anything.

 

[FN FAL]

FAR 91.13, for one.

That's usually what people say when they don't know anything better to say.