Narrative:

Circumstances: took off runway 11. 20 mins later, cleared to land runway 11R, requested wind check on short final. Response: light and variable. Just prior to touch down, discovered significant tailwind (8-10 KT), short runway (3500 ft), touch down speed 85 KTS airspeed. Heavy braking was required to keep from running off the end of runway. Situation warranted a 'go around' but I felt compelled to comply with local laws instead of safe procedure required by far 91.3 contributing factors: torrance municipal code prohibits aborted lndgs (low approaches) during 'prohibited hours' without consideration of safety or authority of pilot in command under far 91.3. During previous weeks, 8 pilots had received letters from the city of torrance (see example at end of narrative) threatening them with fines and jail terms for 'prohibited actions'--even though the control tower had requested specific 'prohibited actions'. Prohibited actions' include low approaches (including aborted lndgs, go around, missed IFR apches) and touch and goes (where the pilot returns to flight after touchdown) during 'prohibited hours.' recommended corrective action: FAA should investigate local laws that conflict with FARS--particularly where far 91.3 is contradicted by local laws. FAA should assert its jurisdiction in these instances to preclude uncertainty on the part of the pilot in command. Factors affecting the quality of human performances: this is a serious safety issue. Pilots in command at torrance do not know what laws apply-FARS or local laws? Decisions such as this must be made in seconds. There should be no room for uncertainty! Torrance municipal code section 51.5.1-7 prohibits touch and go, stop and go, full stop-taxi back and low approach operations at torrance municipal airport during certain times. While the FAA control tower may have authorized the above noted procedure, it is a violation of torrance municipal code. Violation of the code are misdemeanors punishable by a maximum fine of $1000, six months confinement in the county jail, or both.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT CONCERNED FLT SAFETY COMPROMISED BY MUNICIPAL CODES OVERDOING FAR'S.

Narrative: CIRCUMSTANCES: TOOK OFF RWY 11. 20 MINS LATER, CLRED TO LAND RWY 11R, REQUESTED WIND CHK ON SHORT FINAL. RESPONSE: LIGHT AND VARIABLE. JUST PRIOR TO TOUCH DOWN, DISCOVERED SIGNIFICANT TAILWIND (8-10 KT), SHORT RWY (3500 FT), TOUCH DOWN SPEED 85 KTS AIRSPEED. HEAVY BRAKING WAS REQUIRED TO KEEP FROM RUNNING OFF THE END OF RWY. SIT WARRANTED A 'GAR' BUT I FELT COMPELLED TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL LAWS INSTEAD OF SAFE PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY FAR 91.3 CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: TORRANCE MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITS ABORTED LNDGS (LOW APPROACHES) DURING 'PROHIBITED HRS' WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY OR AUTHORITY OF PLT IN COMMAND UNDER FAR 91.3. DURING PREVIOUS WEEKS, 8 PLTS HAD RECEIVED LETTERS FROM THE CITY OF TORRANCE (SEE EXAMPLE AT END OF NARRATIVE) THREATENING THEM WITH FINES AND JAIL TERMS FOR 'PROHIBITED ACTIONS'--EVEN THOUGH THE CTL TWR HAD REQUESTED SPECIFIC 'PROHIBITED ACTIONS'. PROHIBITED ACTIONS' INCLUDE LOW APPROACHES (INCLUDING ABORTED LNDGS, GAR, MISSED IFR APCHES) AND TOUCH AND GOES (WHERE THE PLT RETURNS TO FLT AFTER TOUCHDOWN) DURING 'PROHIBITED HRS.' RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION: FAA SHOULD INVESTIGATE LOCAL LAWS THAT CONFLICT WITH FARS--PARTICULARLY WHERE FAR 91.3 IS CONTRADICTED BY LOCAL LAWS. FAA SHOULD ASSERT ITS JURISDICTION IN THESE INSTANCES TO PRECLUDE UNCERTAINTY ON THE PART OF THE PLT IN COMMAND. FACTORS AFFECTING THE QUALITY OF HUMAN PERFORMANCES: THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE. PLTS IN COMMAND AT TORRANCE DO NOT KNOW WHAT LAWS APPLY-FARS OR LOCAL LAWS? DECISIONS SUCH AS THIS MUST BE MADE IN SECONDS. THERE SHOULD BE NO ROOM FOR UNCERTAINTY! TORRANCE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 51.5.1-7 PROHIBITS TOUCH AND GO, STOP AND GO, FULL STOP-TAXI BACK AND LOW APCH OPS AT TORRANCE MUNICIPAL ARPT DURING CERTAIN TIMES. WHILE THE FAA CTL TWR MAY HAVE AUTHORIZED THE ABOVE NOTED PROC, IT IS A VIOLATION OF TORRANCE MUNICIPAL CODE. VIOLATION OF THE CODE ARE MISDEMEANORS PUNISHABLE BY A MAXIMUM FINE OF $1000, SIX MONTHS CONFINEMENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL, OR BOTH.

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.