37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 400647 |
Time | |
Date | 199804 |
Day | Sat |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : n04 |
State Reference | CT |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | general aviation : personal |
Make Model Name | PA-24 Comanche |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | climbout : takeoff landing other |
Flight Plan | None |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | Other |
Function | flight crew : single pilot |
Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 30 flight time total : 4000 flight time type : 3000 |
ASRS Report | 400647 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | Other |
Function | other personnel |
Qualification | other other : other |
Events | |
Anomaly | other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | none taken : unable |
Consequence | Other |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | Chart Or Publication |
Air Traffic Incident | other |
Situations | |
Airport | procedure or policy : unspecified |
Publication | Unspecified |
Narrative:
On a pleasure flight from frg to 5b4, I noticed a discrepancy on the VFR chart, the GPS and flight guide. One gave the identifier N04 while another gave 5b4. One gave runway length 2500 ft with the other stated 1800 ft. One gave runway heading of 29 and 11 while the other stated 24 and 6. After several attempts on unicom, we were advised that runway 24 was active. Upon overflt, we visually confirmed runway 24 existed and landed. After rollout, we noticed the airport to be deserted so the plane was never shut down, taxied back for departure and left. Later on we consulted the airport directory which also had conflicting information on runway heading and length. It also said 'closed to transients without prior permission.' since we did not have prior permission, but were answered on the unicom, the question arises, did we do anything wrong? Also, since it was day VFR and we had been to this airport before, there was no danger with the misinfo. But this could be very dangerous re runway heading and length. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states there are two similar named airports in the area. Reporter wants to know how one gets prior permission for the griswold madison airport, N04, when no one ever answers the phone. Analyst spoke to the local FSS procedures specialist and learned that the lakeside airport is now private having been closed by the family who owns the airport. This airport is in the town of jewitt city. The lakeside airport was put on the market and developers planned to build condos. This was blocked because it is a wetlands area. He also stated that the griswold madison airport is rarely used and as stated by reporter seems almost abandoned. The FSS specialist indicated he did not know how one gets permission to land at N04. Reporter planned to facsimile copy of the flight guide. When it arrived it had still another airport identifier -- different from either of the two already stated.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: PLT OF PA24-260B STATES CONFUSION OVER ARPT IDENTIFIERS. IT APPEARS TO HIM THAT THE SAME ARPT IS LISTED WITH TWO DIFFERENT IDENTIFIERS FROM THE PUBLICATIONS HE HAS USED. RWYS ARE ALSO DIFFERENT LENGTHS AND DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
Narrative: ON A PLEASURE FLT FROM FRG TO 5B4, I NOTICED A DISCREPANCY ON THE VFR CHART, THE GPS AND FLT GUIDE. ONE GAVE THE IDENTIFIER N04 WHILE ANOTHER GAVE 5B4. ONE GAVE RWY LENGTH 2500 FT WITH THE OTHER STATED 1800 FT. ONE GAVE RWY HEADING OF 29 AND 11 WHILE THE OTHER STATED 24 AND 6. AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS ON UNICOM, WE WERE ADVISED THAT RWY 24 WAS ACTIVE. UPON OVERFLT, WE VISUALLY CONFIRMED RWY 24 EXISTED AND LANDED. AFTER ROLLOUT, WE NOTICED THE ARPT TO BE DESERTED SO THE PLANE WAS NEVER SHUT DOWN, TAXIED BACK FOR DEP AND LEFT. LATER ON WE CONSULTED THE ARPT DIRECTORY WHICH ALSO HAD CONFLICTING INFO ON RWY HEADING AND LENGTH. IT ALSO SAID 'CLOSED TO TRANSIENTS WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION.' SINCE WE DID NOT HAVE PRIOR PERMISSION, BUT WERE ANSWERED ON THE UNICOM, THE QUESTION ARISES, DID WE DO ANYTHING WRONG? ALSO, SINCE IT WAS DAY VFR AND WE HAD BEEN TO THIS ARPT BEFORE, THERE WAS NO DANGER WITH THE MISINFO. BUT THIS COULD BE VERY DANGEROUS RE RWY HEADING AND LENGTH. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THERE ARE TWO SIMILAR NAMED ARPTS IN THE AREA. RPTR WANTS TO KNOW HOW ONE GETS PRIOR PERMISSION FOR THE GRISWOLD MADISON ARPT, N04, WHEN NO ONE EVER ANSWERS THE PHONE. ANALYST SPOKE TO THE LOCAL FSS PROCS SPECIALIST AND LEARNED THAT THE LAKESIDE ARPT IS NOW PVT HAVING BEEN CLOSED BY THE FAMILY WHO OWNS THE ARPT. THIS ARPT IS IN THE TOWN OF JEWITT CITY. THE LAKESIDE ARPT WAS PUT ON THE MARKET AND DEVELOPERS PLANNED TO BUILD CONDOS. THIS WAS BLOCKED BECAUSE IT IS A WETLANDS AREA. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE GRISWOLD MADISON ARPT IS RARELY USED AND AS STATED BY RPTR SEEMS ALMOST ABANDONED. THE FSS SPECIALIST INDICATED HE DID NOT KNOW HOW ONE GETS PERMISSION TO LAND AT N04. RPTR PLANNED TO FAX COPY OF THE FLT GUIDE. WHEN IT ARRIVED IT HAD STILL ANOTHER ARPT IDENTIFIER -- DIFFERENT FROM EITHER OF THE TWO ALREADY STATED.
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.