Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.vclean said:FAR 91.13, for one.
A Squared said: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.
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...ackattacker said: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.
That's usually what people say when they don't know anything better to say.vclean said:FAR 91.13, for one.
You can jeopardize a flight nurse and baby's life by deciding to take off on a closed runway, but you can't make the decision for yourself? Hahahaha...good one. What 135 operator does that kind of stuff?satpak77 said: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.
Vector4fun said:From the FAA 7110.65 Controller's Handbook:
3-3-2. CLOSED/UNSAFE RUNWAY INFORMATION
If an aircraft requests to takeoff, land, or touch-and-go on a closed or unsafe runway, inform the pilot the runway is closed or unsafe, and...
b. Then, if the pilot insists and in your opinion the intended operation would not adversely affect other traffic, inform him/her that the operation will be at his/her own risk.
FN FAL said:[/left]
[/indent]What a concept, it's almost as if the ATC assume risk responsiblity for your takeoff, land, or touch-and-go, under other conditions.![]()
FN FAL said:[/left]
[/indent]What a concept, it's almost as if the ATC assume risk responsiblity for your takeoff, land, or touch-and-go, under other conditions.![]()
cool, if you ever have half an accident just say your 50% of the blame hadn't taken effect yet.ackattacker said:divide up the blame on a percentage basis, i.e. tower control 25% pilot 50% maintenance 25% etc.
For one, if you got permission from the airport management. Notam says runway closed except for 15 minute prior approval. By contacting airport management and getting the ppr...you are doing the same thing. Still doesn't change the fact that the runway is closed.smellthejeta said:For those who say that 91.13 is the excuse people use when they can't find a better reason not to do anything, well, that's what the FAA uses so what's the problem here? Our opinion doesn't count. Besides, I cannot see what logic could be used in front of the FAA when arguing that departing from a NOTAM'd closed runway is NOT careless/reckless/dangerous.
Flibmeister said:For example, Meigs was closed at night, .........................Cops would actually write tickets to pilots that landed there when it was closed