legal to takeoff from closed airport

[Flibmeister]

FAA-legal, yes. For example, Meigs was closed at night, but the FAA never got involved on the numerous occasions pilots used it after dark-- that was strictly a City of Chicago thing. Cops would actually write tickets to pilots that landed there when it was closed.

I've personally departed on closed runways twice: first time at FNT when all three runways were closed for various reasons. I knew that 9/27 was closed solely due to construction on the approach end of 27, so I departed 27 from an intersection (in an Cherokee 180) after the required back-and-forth with the tower as quoted above. No repercussions.

Second time was at Palwaukee when the airport was closed due to flooding. The first 2000 feet of runway 16 was underwater (and expected to be that way for days), and LOTS of us took off on the remaining runway, just to get off the airport. Tower even put the "takeoff will be at your own risk" phraseology on the ATIS. No repercussions.

If either of those situations had gone sour, I have no doubt that there would have been repercussions, in the form of a "careless and reckless" charge-- but most FAA folks seem to go by "no harm, no foul". They rarely pursue an isolated incident, even if it shows questionable judgement, if it turns out to be uneventful.

 

[ackattacker]

[/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.

They do, in a sense. It's been explained to me that after an accident the accident investigators actually divide up the blame on a percentage basis, i.e. tower control 25% pilot 50% maintenance 25% etc. In the event of an accident attributed to unsafe field conditions then the investigators may very well assign a percentage of blame to ATC for issueing a takeoff clearance on a runway they knew to be unsafe. Example would be you take off into wind shear and crash. If the tower controller had access to information that they didn't give you, such as a LLWS alert, recent pirep, or recent heavy aircraft departure then they would be assigned a percentage of blame.

 

[yzf6]

divide up the blame on a percentage basis, i.e. tower control 25% pilot 50% maintenance 25% etc.

cool, if you ever have half an accident just say your 50% of the blame hadn't taken effect yet.

 

[FN FAL]

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.

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.

Two...nobody is saying just go out there and take off, steering around the parked cement trucks.

Three...

FAA wreckless operation is loss of license, possibly. If you crash, you'll still see the Feds in admin court. If you crash, you'll still see the local prosecutor in the culpable negligence or criminal negligence criminal trial. If you crash, you'll still be a defendant in a civil suit. Regardless of whether the runway is closed or not. Good day.

 

[GravityHater]

For example, Meigs was closed at night, .........................Cops would actually write tickets to pilots that landed there when it was closed

huh? They would leave the lights on at night even though it was closed? Sort of like baiting people into a 'ticket'?

PS I would not believe atc when they say anything is legal, or not legal.
No disrespect they are great at pushing tin but they are really not in a position to judge if something is legal or not. You really need someone in a suit to tell you that with any authority. (lawyer, judge)

 

[wrxpilot]

It also got interesting when we had a beechjet roll of the end of the runway and ops shut the airfield down.

I think I remember that... Must be FXE right?

 

[Flibmeister]

huh? They would leave the lights on at night even though it was closed? Sort of like baiting people into a 'ticket'?

Actually, I don't recall if the runway lights were left on or not; they may have been left on to accomodate emergencies, or they may have been off. But the airport (and tower) would close at ten o'clock, and pilots would land anyway, and be greeted by Chicago PD. This wasn't an uncommon occurrence, it happened quite frequently.

As far as the FAA-legality goes, I'm not taking anything at face value from a controller-- as noted earlier in the thread, the 7110.65 has specific provisions allowing for such operations. The FAA could have easily prohibited such operations at controlled airports by simply telling controllers not to allow them; instead, they provide specific guidance on how to do it.

The fact is that there is no FAR prohibiting operation on a closed runway (or on a road, lake, or any other surface that the pilot deems acceptable). So as far as the FAA is concerned, the answer to the original question, "is it legal to operate from a closed airport", is yes. That doesn't mean that it's legal with the city, county, or state, however-- and it doesn't mean the pilot can't be cited by the FAA for other violations, such as "careless and reckless". But operating off a closed runway is not, in and of itself, a violation of FAR's.

 

[Flibmeister]

Another point of interest here: in the event that a pilot is cited for "careless and reckless" for an operation involving takeoff or landing from a closed runway, FAA Order 2150.3A lists the recommended sanction as a 30 to 60 day license suspension. The complete list of recommended sanctions for "careless and reckless" violations:

35. Careless or reckless operations
a. Fuel mismanagement/exhaustion.
SANCTION PER VIOLATION: 30 to 150 day sus.
b. Wheels-up landing.
SANCTION PER VIOLATION: 30 to 60 day sus.
c. Short or long landing.
SANCTION PER VIOLATION: 30 to 90 day sus.
d. Landing on or taking off from closed runway.
SANCTION PER VIOLATION: 30 to 60 day sus.
e. Landing or taking off from ramps or other improper areas.
SANCTION PER VIOLATION: 30 to 120 day sus.
f. Taxiing collision.
SANCTION PER VIOLATION: 30 to 90 day sus.
g. Leaving aircraft unattended with motor running.
SANCTION PER VIOLATION: 30 to 90 day sus.
h. Propping aircraft without a qualified person at controls.
SANCTION PER VIOLATION: 30 to 90 day sus.

 

[Vector4fun]

PS I would not believe atc when they say anything is legal, or not legal.
No disrespect they are great at pushing tin but they are really not in a position to judge if something is legal or not. You really need someone in a suit to tell you that with any authority. (lawyer, judge)

Well, I wouldn't have worded it quite that way, but you're absolutely correct. Just because ATC authorises something, does not make it legal, or put the pilot in the clear. Trust me when I say the provisions of Part 91 are just touched upon in ATC training, and Parts 135 and 121 not at all.

 

[satpak77]

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?

The original question and scenario already made the assessment that it was safe to do so. The question was, is it legal to do so?

My subsequent answer was directed towards that.

 

[avbug]

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.

Don't be so quick to think the FAA would excuse that. I have personal knowledge of one such occurence. It wasn't a baby, it was a kidney being flown in for a transplant, and the FAA displayed very little humor, or tolerance, despite the urgency at the time.

I've used roads, pastures, fields, taxiways, ramps, and just about everything else at various times to land, and take off. Did the FAA care? NO. Does the FAA care today? No. Is there regulation prohibiting it? NO.

At one field, where the runway was closed for repaving, we operated skydive and fire operations off the taxiway. It was narrower, but longer, than the remaining runway. Did the FAA care? No. Was there any regulation to prevent it? No. Was it careless? No. Was it reckless? No. Was it safe? Yes.

This summer a tower moved men, equipment, and obstacles for me after I identified my intended landing runway as one that was closed. The nature of the circumstance lead them to clear the runway and even though it was closed and under construction, clear me to land on it, at my request. They also put rescue trucks adjacent to the runway, and rolled them on the closed runway, following my landing, at my request. The official response? A safety award for taking proactive action to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft (plus a little hat with my name on it...sorta cute). Violation? No.

Last year after returning from a fire, thunderstorms in the area had winds gusting strong enough that I couldn't hold the aircraft along the extended runway centerline on approach and hold less than 30 degrees crab to the runway. I ran out of control authority, and made repeated approaches to and go arounds from the single runway where the reload base was located. Due to building weather, diverting to an alternate was out of the question. I eventually landed, but was prepared to land on the road adjacent to the airport. Illegal? No. Unsafe? No. Careless? No. Reckless? No. Prudent? Yes.

Some rogue inspector doesn't like it? Tough. Better to talk about it over a cup of hot chocolate than across a hospital bed. Those who can, do. Those who can't talk. Let the inspector talk all he wants...it makes him feel better.

Having said that, I can think of nearly countless circumstances in which use of other than a runway may result in justifiable enforcement or other legal action, and I've personally seen a few in which those involved don't bother calling it in. They just shoot.

Use your best judgement, and be sure it's right.

 

[Quillpig]

The official response? A safety award for taking proactive action to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft (plus a little hat with my name on it...sorta cute). Violation? No.

Can you post a picture of yourself in the hat?

 

[avbug]

Do I have to shave for the picture?

 

[Flibmeister]

Here's what the FSDO manual says about it.....

For those that want to see the same guidance the FSDO inspector uses in making a judgement on whether to pursue a "careless and reckless" violation on such matters, take a look at the 8700.1, Volume 2, Chapter 44, Section 4, 12. OPERATIONS ON CLOSED RUNWAYS/TAXIWAYS.

It's rather lengthy, so I won't post the whole thing here, but the gist is that "Operation on any closed and NOTAM listed airport area that results in an accident, incident, or other hazardous occurrence, is grounds for enforcement action. (emphasis mine)

Also,

"H. FAA Responsibilities. When a report of, or a complaint about, an aircraft operating on a closed runway or other airport surface is received, the inspector should make a record of the complaint in detail. (Refer to volume 2, chapter 181.)
(1) The inspector should record as many specific details as possible in order to determine if a hazardous operation took place.
(2) The follow-up investigation should be conducted with an emphasis on the competency of the airman involved (e.g., recognition of hazardous situations, awareness of conditions affecting the operation, and ability to obtain information necessary for conduct of safe operations). If necessary, the inspector should begin an enforcement investigation. (Refer to volume 2, chapter 182.)
(3) During routine contact with airmen (participation in safety seminars, pilot counselling, flight instructor seminars, discussions with pilot schools, etc.), inspectors should disseminate this information and offer appropriate cautions, while emphasizing that the safety of any flight is ultimately the responsibility of the PIC."

 

[A Squared]

Well, I wouldn't have worded it quite that way, but you're absolutely correct. Just because ATC authorises something, does not make it legal, or put the pilot in the clear. Trust me when I say the provisions of Part 91 are just touched upon in ATC training, and Parts 135 and 121 not at all.

Good advice, and pilots would do well to think about the implications. Often pilots have the impression that controllers can modify the fars at will, and that if you have a clearence to do something, it's legal. The reality is that controllers cannot waive FARs except in a very few, narrowly defined situations, and the controller may not have a very complete understanding of the regulations the pilot is bound by. Not too long ago there was a controller posting on this site, who was posting on this forum the that he was "the administrator" and he could modify the regulations at his personal whim. Eventually he stopped posting that crap, but not, I suspect because he realized that he was wrong. If a controller, either through ignorance, or in the case of the aformentiones controller, arrogance mixed with ignorace, clears you to do something against the regulations, it doesn't make it legal.