Narrative:

City closed favored runway when there was strong and gusty wind. Departed runway 17 with intent of practicing crosswind takeoff and lndgs. After takeoff, determined runway 35 would be more appropriate due to slight tailwind component. Also noticed runway 13 had an 'X' over the numbers and men and equipment between the 'X' and threshold (first 200 ft of runway 13) and no 'X' on runway 31 -- the most appropriate runway. Attempted lndgs (2) on runway 35, both ending up as gars (aborts). Decided runway 31 would be the safest alternative since all men and equipment were on the extreme northwest end. Attempted landing on runway 31 and went around again. On next attempt, unicom operator, who is city employed, began harassing and attempted to intimidate, as he has a history of doing. Unicom insisted runway was closed and said we could not operate on runway 31. We landed safely and did a full stop with less than 1000 ft of runway 31 utilized. This particular unicom operator has a history of trying to exercise control over all aircraft activities and is bringing on extra liability on the city. I called the local FSS at approximately XI10 am, 30 mins before a NOTAM was issued for a planned XJ00 am departure and got a standard WX briefing. The only safe alternative was to land on runway 31. I exercised PIC authority/authorized (far 91.3) and after incident was over, heard same unicom operator instruct other pilots to use runway 35. He reported winds at 280 degrees at 18 KTS gusting to 28. I am sorry this incident had to happen, however, I feel I was correct in my actions in the interest of safety. Unfortunately, the airport management and the unicom operator, who aren't pilots or ATC controllers, feel differently. This could have been avoided if management issued a NOTAM stating something to the effect that the last 1000 ft of runway 31 unusable and marked a displaced threshold. I also feel if a low-time pilot attempted to land and ended up crashing, the city would incur too much liability. The WX briefing I referred to earlier in this report, included no information about a NOTAM issued for the closure of runway 13/31, which I made sure to ask about. NOTAM reissued at XK40 am.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR PLT LANDS ON CLOSED RWY BECAUSE OF GUSTY XWINDS FAVORED THAT RWY.

Narrative: CITY CLOSED FAVORED RWY WHEN THERE WAS STRONG AND GUSTY WIND. DEPARTED RWY 17 WITH INTENT OF PRACTICING XWIND TKOF AND LNDGS. AFTER TKOF, DETERMINED RWY 35 WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE DUE TO SLIGHT TAILWIND COMPONENT. ALSO NOTICED RWY 13 HAD AN 'X' OVER THE NUMBERS AND MEN AND EQUIP BTWN THE 'X' AND THRESHOLD (FIRST 200 FT OF RWY 13) AND NO 'X' ON RWY 31 -- THE MOST APPROPRIATE RWY. ATTEMPTED LNDGS (2) ON RWY 35, BOTH ENDING UP AS GARS (ABORTS). DECIDED RWY 31 WOULD BE THE SAFEST ALTERNATIVE SINCE ALL MEN AND EQUIP WERE ON THE EXTREME NW END. ATTEMPTED LNDG ON RWY 31 AND WENT AROUND AGAIN. ON NEXT ATTEMPT, UNICOM OPERATOR, WHO IS CITY EMPLOYED, BEGAN HARASSING AND ATTEMPTED TO INTIMIDATE, AS HE HAS A HISTORY OF DOING. UNICOM INSISTED RWY WAS CLOSED AND SAID WE COULD NOT OPERATE ON RWY 31. WE LANDED SAFELY AND DID A FULL STOP WITH LESS THAN 1000 FT OF RWY 31 UTILIZED. THIS PARTICULAR UNICOM OPERATOR HAS A HISTORY OF TRYING TO EXERCISE CTL OVER ALL ACFT ACTIVITIES AND IS BRINGING ON EXTRA LIABILITY ON THE CITY. I CALLED THE LCL FSS AT APPROX XI10 AM, 30 MINS BEFORE A NOTAM WAS ISSUED FOR A PLANNED XJ00 AM DEP AND GOT A STANDARD WX BRIEFING. THE ONLY SAFE ALTERNATIVE WAS TO LAND ON RWY 31. I EXERCISED PIC AUTH (FAR 91.3) AND AFTER INCIDENT WAS OVER, HEARD SAME UNICOM OPERATOR INSTRUCT OTHER PLTS TO USE RWY 35. HE RPTED WINDS AT 280 DEGS AT 18 KTS GUSTING TO 28. I AM SORRY THIS INCIDENT HAD TO HAPPEN, HOWEVER, I FEEL I WAS CORRECT IN MY ACTIONS IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ARPT MGMNT AND THE UNICOM OPERATOR, WHO AREN'T PLTS OR ATC CTLRS, FEEL DIFFERENTLY. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF MGMNT ISSUED A NOTAM STATING SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE LAST 1000 FT OF RWY 31 UNUSABLE AND MARKED A DISPLACED THRESHOLD. I ALSO FEEL IF A LOW-TIME PLT ATTEMPTED TO LAND AND ENDED UP CRASHING, THE CITY WOULD INCUR TOO MUCH LIABILITY. THE WX BRIEFING I REFERRED TO EARLIER IN THIS RPT, INCLUDED NO INFO ABOUT A NOTAM ISSUED FOR THE CLOSURE OF RWY 13/31, WHICH I MADE SURE TO ASK ABOUT. NOTAM REISSUED AT XK40 AM.

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.