Narrative:

An approach was made to eat for runway 29. At minimum descent altitude the runway environment was not in sight. Therefore, a missed approach was executed. The missed approach was executed in VFR conditions. During execution of the missed approach, runway 25 was in VFR conditions. Runway 29 remained in IFR conditions. Accordingly, after intentions were announced, the aircraft was circled and landed on runway 25. This was done in a VFR environment. Upon putting the aircraft in the hangar, the airport manager came to the hangar and advised that pilots upon a commuter aircraft claimed that they were going to file 'an incident report.' evidently the basis for this report was the claim that the runway upon which the landing was made was closed. I have received information that the runway was closed, but based upon more recent information provided, believed that to be incorrect. Runway 25 has been closed (by NOTAM) during the winter months since at least 1976. The reason for the closing has been that airport personnel did not want to plow that runway. However, each spring the runway is opened when the snow melts off the runway. At the time of the landing, runway 25 was clear of snow. I believed that the information that the runway was closed was outdated information. The airport manager stated that in the past (including this yr), the reason for closure of runway 25 was the snow. Within the past week or 10 days that reason had changed. The runway was now closed due to the absence of some light or lights. No notice of this change was given. To prevent any recurrence, if a long standing reason for the existence of a NOTAM changes, this should be made public. If I had known that the runway was closed and that the information that runway 25 was closed was not outdated as I had been led to believe, I would have continued to circle in the area until runway 29 reached IFR minimums. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter infers NOTAM is issued in the early part of the snow season and the information is available in FSS briefings. However, in checking with the FSS office in seattle, they advised no current NOTAMS issued. During the conversation, the reporter indicated the runway was marked with an 'X' that he did not see. Get the impression this is a very casual operation and local based aircraft operators are aware if snow, runway 25 will not be available. FSDO had visited the facility and found the inoperative lights, and he believes that is the reason the runway was closed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LNDG ON A CLOSED RWY.

Narrative: AN APCH WAS MADE TO EAT FOR RWY 29. AT MINIMUM DSNT ALT THE RWY ENVIRONMENT WAS NOT IN SIGHT. THEREFORE, A MISSED APCH WAS EXECUTED. THE MISSED APCH WAS EXECUTED IN VFR CONDITIONS. DURING EXECUTION OF THE MISSED APCH, RWY 25 WAS IN VFR CONDITIONS. RWY 29 REMAINED IN IFR CONDITIONS. ACCORDINGLY, AFTER INTENTIONS WERE ANNOUNCED, THE ACFT WAS CIRCLED AND LANDED ON RWY 25. THIS WAS DONE IN A VFR ENVIRONMENT. UPON PUTTING THE ACFT IN THE HANGAR, THE ARPT MGR CAME TO THE HANGAR AND ADVISED THAT PLTS UPON A COMMUTER ACFT CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO FILE 'AN INCIDENT RPT.' EVIDENTLY THE BASIS FOR THIS RPT WAS THE CLAIM THAT THE RWY UPON WHICH THE LNDG WAS MADE WAS CLOSED. I HAVE RECEIVED INFO THAT THE RWY WAS CLOSED, BUT BASED UPON MORE RECENT INFO PROVIDED, BELIEVED THAT TO BE INCORRECT. RWY 25 HAS BEEN CLOSED (BY NOTAM) DURING THE WINTER MONTHS SINCE AT LEAST 1976. THE REASON FOR THE CLOSING HAS BEEN THAT ARPT PERSONNEL DID NOT WANT TO PLOW THAT RWY. HOWEVER, EACH SPRING THE RWY IS OPENED WHEN THE SNOW MELTS OFF THE RWY. AT THE TIME OF THE LNDG, RWY 25 WAS CLR OF SNOW. I BELIEVED THAT THE INFO THAT THE RWY WAS CLOSED WAS OUTDATED INFO. THE ARPT MGR STATED THAT IN THE PAST (INCLUDING THIS YR), THE REASON FOR CLOSURE OF RWY 25 WAS THE SNOW. WITHIN THE PAST WK OR 10 DAYS THAT REASON HAD CHANGED. THE RWY WAS NOW CLOSED DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF SOME LIGHT OR LIGHTS. NO NOTICE OF THIS CHANGE WAS GIVEN. TO PREVENT ANY RECURRENCE, IF A LONG STANDING REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A NOTAM CHANGES, THIS SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC. IF I HAD KNOWN THAT THE RWY WAS CLOSED AND THAT THE INFO THAT RWY 25 WAS CLOSED WAS NOT OUTDATED AS I HAD BEEN LED TO BELIEVE, I WOULD HAVE CONTINUED TO CIRCLE IN THE AREA UNTIL RWY 29 REACHED IFR MINIMUMS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR INFERS NOTAM IS ISSUED IN THE EARLY PART OF THE SNOW SEASON AND THE INFO IS AVAILABLE IN FSS BRIEFINGS. HOWEVER, IN CHKING WITH THE FSS OFFICE IN SEATTLE, THEY ADVISED NO CURRENT NOTAMS ISSUED. DURING THE CONVERSATION, THE RPTR INDICATED THE RWY WAS MARKED WITH AN 'X' THAT HE DID NOT SEE. GET THE IMPRESSION THIS IS A VERY CASUAL OPERATION AND LCL BASED ACFT OPERATORS ARE AWARE IF SNOW, RWY 25 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE. FSDO HAD VISITED THE FAC AND FOUND THE INOP LIGHTS, AND HE BELIEVES THAT IS THE REASON THE RWY WAS CLOSED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.