Narrative:

Pao airport had been closed due to water on 1 side of the runway. After having talked to other pilots it was apparent that the tower, although not issuing takeoff and landing clrncs, were allowing any pilot who wished, depart or arrive if they declared and requested to do it at their own risk. I flew from sjc to palo alto and requested to land at my own risk. The tower said that they could not issue a clearance but could descend into right traffic and proceed as requested, i.e., land at my own risk. Both the tower personnel and myself believed that this was legal and not a violation of any rules. On departure from palo alto I called up for a taxi clearance to runway 30 for a departure at my own risk. I was cleared to taxi. Another pilot called ground control shortly after and asked what to do in this situation and what the legality was in this instance. He asked if it were legal for him to depart from palo alto at his own risk. The tower said that they could not issue a clearance but that the pilot could takeoff at his own risk. This confirmed my belief that if no danger or hazards existed it was still legal for me to depart. I called tower and requested departure on runway 30 at my own risk and was given wind direction from the tower. Later in the day, the FSDO telephoned pao tower and told them that the pilots taking off and landing were violating far 91.129(H). The tower obviously did not know this as they told more than 1 pilot that it was ok to takeoff or land at pilot's own risk. The runway only had approximately 1/4 width covered in 1 place with water and there was ample dry runway per aircraft to arrive and depart safely. As the tower allowed another light transport aircraft that day to operate into and out of the airpark, I feel violating everyone for breaking part 91.129(H) would be unfair and illegal as the tower, FAA officials, were allowing these operations and telling pilots that it was legal. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that she had first driven to the airport to observe the runway condition after learning from the nearby airport the intended destination airport runway was flooded. However, after arriving and observing aircraft operations off of the closed runway, she asked the tower how operations were permitted and found that the tower was allowing them 'at your own risk.' she then drove back to the other airport and flew her aircraft to pao by permission of the tower to enter the traffic pattern and land at her own risk. She further stated that she would like to see a definite procedure established that would either close the airport or have it safely opened.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF SMA ACFT MADE TKOF AND LNDG ON CLOSED RWY DUE TO FLOODING AT A CTLED ARPT.

Narrative: PAO ARPT HAD BEEN CLOSED DUE TO WATER ON 1 SIDE OF THE RWY. AFTER HAVING TALKED TO OTHER PLTS IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE TWR, ALTHOUGH NOT ISSUING TKOF AND LNDG CLRNCS, WERE ALLOWING ANY PLT WHO WISHED, DEPART OR ARRIVE IF THEY DECLARED AND REQUESTED TO DO IT AT THEIR OWN RISK. I FLEW FROM SJC TO PALO ALTO AND REQUESTED TO LAND AT MY OWN RISK. THE TWR SAID THAT THEY COULD NOT ISSUE A CLRNC BUT COULD DSND INTO R TFC AND PROCEED AS REQUESTED, I.E., LAND AT MY OWN RISK. BOTH THE TWR PERSONNEL AND MYSELF BELIEVED THAT THIS WAS LEGAL AND NOT A VIOLATION OF ANY RULES. ON DEP FROM PALO ALTO I CALLED UP FOR A TAXI CLRNC TO RWY 30 FOR A DEP AT MY OWN RISK. I WAS CLRED TO TAXI. ANOTHER PLT CALLED GND CTL SHORTLY AFTER AND ASKED WHAT TO DO IN THIS SIT AND WHAT THE LEGALITY WAS IN THIS INSTANCE. HE ASKED IF IT WERE LEGAL FOR HIM TO DEPART FROM PALO ALTO AT HIS OWN RISK. THE TWR SAID THAT THEY COULD NOT ISSUE A CLRNC BUT THAT THE PLT COULD TKOF AT HIS OWN RISK. THIS CONFIRMED MY BELIEF THAT IF NO DANGER OR HAZARDS EXISTED IT WAS STILL LEGAL FOR ME TO DEPART. I CALLED TWR AND REQUESTED DEP ON RWY 30 AT MY OWN RISK AND WAS GIVEN WIND DIRECTION FROM THE TWR. LATER IN THE DAY, THE FSDO TELEPHONED PAO TWR AND TOLD THEM THAT THE PLTS TAKING OFF AND LNDG WERE VIOLATING FAR 91.129(H). THE TWR OBVIOUSLY DID NOT KNOW THIS AS THEY TOLD MORE THAN 1 PLT THAT IT WAS OK TO TKOF OR LAND AT PLT'S OWN RISK. THE RWY ONLY HAD APPROX 1/4 WIDTH COVERED IN 1 PLACE WITH WATER AND THERE WAS AMPLE DRY RWY PER ACFT TO ARRIVE AND DEPART SAFELY. AS THE TWR ALLOWED ANOTHER LTT ACFT THAT DAY TO OPERATE INTO AND OUT OF THE AIRPARK, I FEEL VIOLATING EVERYONE FOR BREAKING PART 91.129(H) WOULD BE UNFAIR AND ILLEGAL AS THE TWR, FAA OFFICIALS, WERE ALLOWING THESE OPS AND TELLING PLTS THAT IT WAS LEGAL. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT SHE HAD FIRST DRIVEN TO THE ARPT TO OBSERVE THE RWY CONDITION AFTER LEARNING FROM THE NEARBY ARPT THE INTENDED DEST ARPT RWY WAS FLOODED. HOWEVER, AFTER ARRIVING AND OBSERVING ACFT OPS OFF OF THE CLOSED RWY, SHE ASKED THE TWR HOW OPS WERE PERMITTED AND FOUND THAT THE TWR WAS ALLOWING THEM 'AT YOUR OWN RISK.' SHE THEN DROVE BACK TO THE OTHER ARPT AND FLEW HER ACFT TO PAO BY PERMISSION OF THE TWR TO ENTER THE TFC PATTERN AND LAND AT HER OWN RISK. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A DEFINITE PROC ESTABLISHED THAT WOULD EITHER CLOSE THE ARPT OR HAVE IT SAFELY OPENED.

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.