Narrative:

The event took place on a routine training flight on the afternoon of oct/xx/91. My student and I were working on some instrument instruction. Before takeoff, the local WX was monitored on the kissimmee AWOS system. The WX, particularly the winds, were 060 at 11 KTS on takeoff. The airport was using runway 33 as our cross runway, 6/24 was closed due to construction on a taxiway. After approximately 1 hour, we returned to kissimmee and again monitored AWOS. The winds had increased in velocity to 17 gusting to 25 KTS. The wind direction was still 060 and runway 33 was still in use. As this was a direct crosswind, and exceeded the crosswind component of my airplane, I elected to land on runway 6 in order to assure the safe completion of my flight. The airport is an uncontrolled airport, and all my actions were conducted within the limits of an uncontrolled airport. It was my firm belief that landing on runway 6 (closed due to taxiway construction), was the appropriate response in an increasingly dangerous situation. It should be noted that great care was conducted in not posing a traffic threat or a hazardous threat to any other airplane or person operating above or on the airport property. The flight was completed safely and again great diligence in looking for traffic both in the air and on the ground was exercised. To supplement that, the landing was made on the fixed distance marker which held me short of the construction and yet landed me long enough as to not pose a threat to parked traffic at the beginning of runway 6. This parked traffic was an airship, and in addition to a high approach path, I approached well to the right of the airship. The airship and its position was never lost sight of. As PIC, it was and is my belief that in order to safely complete the flight it was necessary to land on the closed runway 6. At no time did my aircraft endanger or have conflict with any other aircraft or person on the airport property. One last note should be emphasized: the construction was not at all on runway 6, but the taxiway adjacent to 6. To conclude, the problem arose from the fact that the airport manager stated that by landing on a closed runway I carelessly and recklessly operated my airplane. At no time did I operate in a dangerous manner and careful thought was given to my actions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA CFI LANDS HIS ACFT ON CLOSED RWY WHEN SURFACE WIND CONDITIONS EXCEED ACFT XWIND CAPABILITIES.

Narrative: THE EVENT TOOK PLACE ON A ROUTINE TRAINING FLT ON THE AFTERNOON OF OCT/XX/91. MY STUDENT AND I WERE WORKING ON SOME INST INSTRUCTION. BEFORE TKOF, THE LCL WX WAS MONITORED ON THE KISSIMMEE AWOS SYS. THE WX, PARTICULARLY THE WINDS, WERE 060 AT 11 KTS ON TKOF. THE ARPT WAS USING RWY 33 AS OUR CROSS RWY, 6/24 WAS CLOSED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ON A TAXIWAY. AFTER APPROX 1 HR, WE RETURNED TO KISSIMMEE AND AGAIN MONITORED AWOS. THE WINDS HAD INCREASED IN VELOCITY TO 17 GUSTING TO 25 KTS. THE WIND DIRECTION WAS STILL 060 AND RWY 33 WAS STILL IN USE. AS THIS WAS A DIRECT XWIND, AND EXCEEDED THE XWIND COMPONENT OF MY AIRPLANE, I ELECTED TO LAND ON RWY 6 IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE SAFE COMPLETION OF MY FLT. THE ARPT IS AN UNCTLED ARPT, AND ALL MY ACTIONS WERE CONDUCTED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF AN UNCTLED ARPT. IT WAS MY FIRM BELIEF THAT LNDG ON RWY 6 (CLOSED DUE TO TAXIWAY CONSTRUCTION), WAS THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE IN AN INCREASINGLY DANGEROUS SITUATION. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT GREAT CARE WAS CONDUCTED IN NOT POSING A TFC THREAT OR A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO ANY OTHER AIRPLANE OR PERSON OPERATING ABOVE OR ON THE ARPT PROPERTY. THE FLT WAS COMPLETED SAFELY AND AGAIN GREAT DILIGENCE IN LOOKING FOR TFC BOTH IN THE AIR AND ON THE GND WAS EXERCISED. TO SUPPLEMENT THAT, THE LNDG WAS MADE ON THE FIXED DISTANCE MARKER WHICH HELD ME SHORT OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND YET LANDED ME LONG ENOUGH AS TO NOT POSE A THREAT TO PARKED TFC AT THE BEGINNING OF RWY 6. THIS PARKED TFC WAS AN AIRSHIP, AND IN ADDITION TO A HIGH APCH PATH, I APCHED WELL TO THE R OF THE AIRSHIP. THE AIRSHIP AND ITS POS WAS NEVER LOST SIGHT OF. AS PIC, IT WAS AND IS MY BELIEF THAT IN ORDER TO SAFELY COMPLETE THE FLT IT WAS NECESSARY TO LAND ON THE CLOSED RWY 6. AT NO TIME DID MY ACFT ENDANGER OR HAVE CONFLICT WITH ANY OTHER ACFT OR PERSON ON THE ARPT PROPERTY. ONE LAST NOTE SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED: THE CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT AT ALL ON RWY 6, BUT THE TAXIWAY ADJACENT TO 6. TO CONCLUDE, THE PROBLEM AROSE FROM THE FACT THAT THE ARPT MGR STATED THAT BY LNDG ON A CLOSED RWY I CARELESSLY AND RECKLESSLY OPERATED MY AIRPLANE. AT NO TIME DID I OPERATE IN A DANGEROUS MANNER AND CAREFUL THOUGHT WAS GIVEN TO MY ACTIONS.

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.