Narrative:

Jun/xx/96, I flew an N265 from connelsville, PA (2g3), to pittsburg, PA (pit), to pick up a company representative and return him to 2g3 for a meeting. I then flew to mgw to begin annual recurrent training. The morning on jun/xx/96 at approximately AA30 hours the first officer requested a WX brief from flight service for a local training flight as well as our passenger pickup at 2g3. No NOTAM had been published at that time. That afternoon at approximately XX00 hours I returned to 2g3 to pick up the same passenger and return him to pit for airline connections. Upon arrival at 2g3 the first officer contacted unicom to request an airport advisory. We did not receive a reply. We then overflew the airport and called again and were told to land on runway 14. Since this runway is not long enough we informed unicom that we would be landing on runway 23. We were then told that runway 23 was closed for crack sealing (this was the first information we received on the closure). I then asked the unicom operator if they could remove the men and equipment from the runway and permit us to use it for our pickup. After some conversation on the subject the unicom operator agreed to do it. After the men and equipment left the runway we made a normal landing, picked up our passenger and taxied for departure. The foreman of the repair crew even moved barricades so we could get to the runway for departure. Since I have been in aviation (30 yrs) this has always been the way that airport operators could allow their based customers to operate during times of temporary closure. I have been recently informed that the airport manager does not have the authority/authorized to temporarily open a runway while a NOTAM is in effect, while I think this is wrong, it is what it is. So I propose this solution. 1) require all NOTAMS to be filed a minimum of 7 days prior to any closure (I have been told that the NOTAM in the above incident was filed AB30 hours on same day. 2) develop a program to educate the airport operators as to their obligation to overstep their authority/authorized. 3) require all airport operators to notify their based customers of any pending closures at least 7 days prior to the event. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that the FAA sent an loi (letter of investigation). His attorney is handling the problem at this point and will try to speak to the chief of the entire resealing project. The problem seems to be the engineer on duty at the time of the incident. 1 week later he was requested to repeat the situation for another company aircraft, then got upset and sent a letter to the FAA. They of course are required to follow up when receiving complaints. The second crew failed to acquire the NOTAM, but in reporter's case, the NOTAM was issued after the WX briefing so they had no way to know of it. Since the person on the unicom cooperated and cleared the runway then gave permission to land reporter believed he had such permission. Reporter's attorney calls this 'implied authority/authorized' and feels reporter did nothing wrong. Reporter is aware that he missed the 10 day period for filing his report, but did not know of the engineer's letter until well after the fact.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CORPORATE ACFT LANDS ON CLOSED RWY AFTER RECEIVING PERMISSION FROM A UNICOM OPERATOR AND COOPERATION FROM THE RESEALING CREW.

Narrative: JUN/XX/96, I FLEW AN N265 FROM CONNELSVILLE, PA (2G3), TO PITTSBURG, PA (PIT), TO PICK UP A COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE AND RETURN HIM TO 2G3 FOR A MEETING. I THEN FLEW TO MGW TO BEGIN ANNUAL RECURRENT TRAINING. THE MORNING ON JUN/XX/96 AT APPROX AA30 HRS THE FO REQUESTED A WX BRIEF FROM FLT SVC FOR A LCL TRAINING FLT AS WELL AS OUR PAX PICKUP AT 2G3. NO NOTAM HAD BEEN PUBLISHED AT THAT TIME. THAT AFTERNOON AT APPROX XX00 HRS I RETURNED TO 2G3 TO PICK UP THE SAME PAX AND RETURN HIM TO PIT FOR AIRLINE CONNECTIONS. UPON ARR AT 2G3 THE FO CONTACTED UNICOM TO REQUEST AN ARPT ADVISORY. WE DID NOT RECEIVE A REPLY. WE THEN OVERFLEW THE ARPT AND CALLED AGAIN AND WERE TOLD TO LAND ON RWY 14. SINCE THIS RWY IS NOT LONG ENOUGH WE INFORMED UNICOM THAT WE WOULD BE LNDG ON RWY 23. WE WERE THEN TOLD THAT RWY 23 WAS CLOSED FOR CRACK SEALING (THIS WAS THE FIRST INFO WE RECEIVED ON THE CLOSURE). I THEN ASKED THE UNICOM OPERATOR IF THEY COULD REMOVE THE MEN AND EQUIP FROM THE RWY AND PERMIT US TO USE IT FOR OUR PICKUP. AFTER SOME CONVERSATION ON THE SUBJECT THE UNICOM OPERATOR AGREED TO DO IT. AFTER THE MEN AND EQUIP LEFT THE RWY WE MADE A NORMAL LNDG, PICKED UP OUR PAX AND TAXIED FOR DEP. THE FOREMAN OF THE REPAIR CREW EVEN MOVED BARRICADES SO WE COULD GET TO THE RWY FOR DEP. SINCE I HAVE BEEN IN AVIATION (30 YRS) THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE WAY THAT ARPT OPERATORS COULD ALLOW THEIR BASED CUSTOMERS TO OPERATE DURING TIMES OF TEMPORARY CLOSURE. I HAVE BEEN RECENTLY INFORMED THAT THE ARPT MGR DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTH TO TEMPORARILY OPEN A RWY WHILE A NOTAM IS IN EFFECT, WHILE I THINK THIS IS WRONG, IT IS WHAT IT IS. SO I PROPOSE THIS SOLUTION. 1) REQUIRE ALL NOTAMS TO BE FILED A MINIMUM OF 7 DAYS PRIOR TO ANY CLOSURE (I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE NOTAM IN THE ABOVE INCIDENT WAS FILED AB30 HRS ON SAME DAY. 2) DEVELOP A PROGRAM TO EDUCATE THE ARPT OPERATORS AS TO THEIR OBLIGATION TO OVERSTEP THEIR AUTH. 3) REQUIRE ALL ARPT OPERATORS TO NOTIFY THEIR BASED CUSTOMERS OF ANY PENDING CLOSURES AT LEAST 7 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EVENT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT THE FAA SENT AN LOI (LETTER OF INVESTIGATION). HIS ATTORNEY IS HANDLING THE PROB AT THIS POINT AND WILL TRY TO SPEAK TO THE CHIEF OF THE ENTIRE RESEALING PROJECT. THE PROB SEEMS TO BE THE ENGINEER ON DUTY AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. 1 WK LATER HE WAS REQUESTED TO REPEAT THE SIT FOR ANOTHER COMPANY ACFT, THEN GOT UPSET AND SENT A LETTER TO THE FAA. THEY OF COURSE ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW UP WHEN RECEIVING COMPLAINTS. THE SECOND CREW FAILED TO ACQUIRE THE NOTAM, BUT IN RPTR'S CASE, THE NOTAM WAS ISSUED AFTER THE WX BRIEFING SO THEY HAD NO WAY TO KNOW OF IT. SINCE THE PERSON ON THE UNICOM COOPERATED AND CLRED THE RWY THEN GAVE PERMISSION TO LAND RPTR BELIEVED HE HAD SUCH PERMISSION. RPTR'S ATTORNEY CALLS THIS 'IMPLIED AUTH' AND FEELS RPTR DID NOTHING WRONG. RPTR IS AWARE THAT HE MISSED THE 10 DAY PERIOD FOR FILING HIS RPT, BUT DID NOT KNOW OF THE ENGINEER'S LETTER UNTIL WELL AFTER THE FACT.

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.