Narrative:

During the week of may/94 runways 1-19, 14, and 1/3 of runway 32 were to be closed for repair. The remainder of runway 32 was allegedly open. A NOTAM stated that airport was closed to fixed wing aircraft at night. I departed runway 32 at about XX30 with an instructor for the purpose of practice ILS approachs at bdr and pou. We returned and after listening to the ATIS which reported runway 32 in use, called tower inbound. I was advised that the airport closed in 6 mins and to report the right downwind for runway 32 (I was 10 mi out, GS 140 mph). I descended from 3500 ft to 2000 ft and next reported my position to tower at 5 mi from airport. I was advised to report downwind, abeam the tower. I next reported as requested (well within the 6 mins time interval) -- gear down, 1/3 flaps, 1100 ft and 90 KTS airspeed and was advised by tower that airport had closed 5 seconds ago. I continued downwind. We requested classification. It was my understanding that tower responded that there was a miscalculation and that airport had actually closed 45 seconds ago. We advised tower that we were downwind and requested advice. Response was that no advice could be given with respect to this situation, and that tower was only responsible for sequencing departure and landing operations during normal operations. We next asked if the current situation was similar to tower closing at 11 P.M. And if we were on 'our own.' tower advised that he could not advise us. Airport closed to fix winged aircraft (rotorcraft permitted). By this time I was descending and ready to turn base with airport and runway clearly in sight. We reported base and asked it 'landing was at our own risk' and to please clarify the situation. (Prior to this tower had advised that he would request a waiver from airport manager, but this was turned down). I believe we were next advised that any operations were at our own risk. By this time we were descending with runway in sight on 1 mi final. Landing was uneventful and probably 2 mins after airport allegedly closed. We were met by security at the tiedown and they requested our names. Perceptions/decisions: I believe we were within the 6 mins as advised by tower when I reported downwind. Tower and airport management clearly had different closing times. We could obtain no definitive clarification of the inconsistency -- no one said you may not land. Airport/runway were clearly in sight and aircraft was in landing confign. We were led to believe that we could land, but at our own risk.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA LANDED AFTER THE ARPT WAS CLOSED FOR EVENING CONSTRUCTION.

Narrative: DURING THE WK OF MAY/94 RWYS 1-19, 14, AND 1/3 OF RWY 32 WERE TO BE CLOSED FOR REPAIR. THE REMAINDER OF RWY 32 WAS ALLEGEDLY OPEN. A NOTAM STATED THAT ARPT WAS CLOSED TO FIXED WING ACFT AT NIGHT. I DEPARTED RWY 32 AT ABOUT XX30 WITH AN INSTRUCTOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRACTICE ILS APCHS AT BDR AND POU. WE RETURNED AND AFTER LISTENING TO THE ATIS WHICH RPTED RWY 32 IN USE, CALLED TWR INBOUND. I WAS ADVISED THAT THE ARPT CLOSED IN 6 MINS AND TO RPT THE R DOWNWIND FOR RWY 32 (I WAS 10 MI OUT, GS 140 MPH). I DSNDED FROM 3500 FT TO 2000 FT AND NEXT RPTED MY POS TO TWR AT 5 MI FROM ARPT. I WAS ADVISED TO RPT DOWNWIND, ABEAM THE TWR. I NEXT RPTED AS REQUESTED (WELL WITHIN THE 6 MINS TIME INTERVAL) -- GEAR DOWN, 1/3 FLAPS, 1100 FT AND 90 KTS AIRSPD AND WAS ADVISED BY TWR THAT ARPT HAD CLOSED 5 SECONDS AGO. I CONTINUED DOWNWIND. WE REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT TWR RESPONDED THAT THERE WAS A MISCALCULATION AND THAT ARPT HAD ACTUALLY CLOSED 45 SECONDS AGO. WE ADVISED TWR THAT WE WERE DOWNWIND AND REQUESTED ADVICE. RESPONSE WAS THAT NO ADVICE COULD BE GIVEN WITH RESPECT TO THIS SIT, AND THAT TWR WAS ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SEQUENCING DEP AND LNDG OPS DURING NORMAL OPS. WE NEXT ASKED IF THE CURRENT SIT WAS SIMILAR TO TWR CLOSING AT 11 P.M. AND IF WE WERE ON 'OUR OWN.' TWR ADVISED THAT HE COULD NOT ADVISE US. ARPT CLOSED TO FIX WINGED ACFT (ROTORCRAFT PERMITTED). BY THIS TIME I WAS DSNDING AND READY TO TURN BASE WITH ARPT AND RWY CLRLY IN SIGHT. WE RPTED BASE AND ASKED IT 'LNDG WAS AT OUR OWN RISK' AND TO PLEASE CLARIFY THE SIT. (PRIOR TO THIS TWR HAD ADVISED THAT HE WOULD REQUEST A WAIVER FROM ARPT MGR, BUT THIS WAS TURNED DOWN). I BELIEVE WE WERE NEXT ADVISED THAT ANY OPS WERE AT OUR OWN RISK. BY THIS TIME WE WERE DSNDING WITH RWY IN SIGHT ON 1 MI FINAL. LNDG WAS UNEVENTFUL AND PROBABLY 2 MINS AFTER ARPT ALLEGEDLY CLOSED. WE WERE MET BY SECURITY AT THE TIEDOWN AND THEY REQUESTED OUR NAMES. PERCEPTIONS/DECISIONS: I BELIEVE WE WERE WITHIN THE 6 MINS AS ADVISED BY TWR WHEN I RPTED DOWNWIND. TWR AND ARPT MGMNT CLRLY HAD DIFFERENT CLOSING TIMES. WE COULD OBTAIN NO DEFINITIVE CLARIFICATION OF THE INCONSISTENCY -- NO ONE SAID YOU MAY NOT LAND. ARPT/RWY WERE CLRLY IN SIGHT AND ACFT WAS IN LNDG CONFIGN. WE WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT WE COULD LAND, BUT AT OUR OWN RISK.

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.