37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 609502 |
Time | |
Date | 200402 |
Day | Fri |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : mdd.airport |
State Reference | TX |
Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
Environment | |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air taxi |
Make Model Name | Learjet 25 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 135 |
Flight Phase | descent : approach landing : roll |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air taxi |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : multi engine pilot : commercial pilot : instrument pilot : cfi pilot : atp |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 120 flight time total : 4300 flight time type : 1700 |
ASRS Report | 609502 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air taxi |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Events | |
Anomaly | incursion : runway non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa other other : 3 |
Resolutory Action | none taken : insufficient time |
Consequence | Other |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Airport Flight Crew Human Performance |
Primary Problem | Airport |
Situations | |
Airport | markings : mdd.airport procedure or policy : mdo.airport signage : mdd.airport |
Narrative:
While flying into midland downtown airpark, I made several calls to an FBO for airport advisories with no response. I stated our position of approximately 20 mi northwest of the airport with our intentions to land on runway 7. The copilot made all the appropriate calls while I maneuvered the airplane for a visual approach to the runway. During the critical phase of landing, both the copilot and I saw what looked to be an 'X' in the dirt just before the runway. The 'X' was not visible until the last moment just before touchdown. Once at the FBO, 3 employees met us and mocked us for landing on a closed runway. We were also told that we were not the first to land on the runway that day. When I asked an employee why the 'X' was not placed directly on the runway, he replied that the runway was scheduled to be repainted sometime in the near future. The employees seemed amused at the occurrence, and it struck me as odd that they all had been outside to observe the landing, but were unavailable to answer our request for airport advisories. They stated that they had been inside a hangar, waxing an airplane, which was not true. Our dispatch office had spoken with them 15 mins earlier to inform them of our arrival. Had an 'X' been appropriately marked directly on the runway, I would have been able to discern that the runway was closed. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter advised that the runway was closed for number and strip painting. Reporter stated that airport personnel claimed other aircraft had landed on the closed runway earlier that day. When questioned by the reporter about the 'X' placement being left off the runway approach end, he was told that they were told to place it in that position. To the reporter's knowledge, no NOTAM was ever sent advising of the proposed activity. The reporter advised that the runway was opened 'a few days later.'
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ON LNDG FLARE AT MDD, LJ25 FLT CREW OBSERVE AN 'X' ON THE L SIDE OF RWY APCH END. FBO PERSONNEL ADVISE THEY HAD LANDED ON A CLOSED RWY.
Narrative: WHILE FLYING INTO MIDLAND DOWNTOWN AIRPARK, I MADE SEVERAL CALLS TO AN FBO FOR ARPT ADVISORIES WITH NO RESPONSE. I STATED OUR POS OF APPROX 20 MI NW OF THE ARPT WITH OUR INTENTIONS TO LAND ON RWY 7. THE COPLT MADE ALL THE APPROPRIATE CALLS WHILE I MANEUVERED THE AIRPLANE FOR A VISUAL APCH TO THE RWY. DURING THE CRITICAL PHASE OF LNDG, BOTH THE COPLT AND I SAW WHAT LOOKED TO BE AN 'X' IN THE DIRT JUST BEFORE THE RWY. THE 'X' WAS NOT VISIBLE UNTIL THE LAST MOMENT JUST BEFORE TOUCHDOWN. ONCE AT THE FBO, 3 EMPLOYEES MET US AND MOCKED US FOR LNDG ON A CLOSED RWY. WE WERE ALSO TOLD THAT WE WERE NOT THE FIRST TO LAND ON THE RWY THAT DAY. WHEN I ASKED AN EMPLOYEE WHY THE 'X' WAS NOT PLACED DIRECTLY ON THE RWY, HE REPLIED THAT THE RWY WAS SCHEDULED TO BE REPAINTED SOMETIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THE EMPLOYEES SEEMED AMUSED AT THE OCCURRENCE, AND IT STRUCK ME AS ODD THAT THEY ALL HAD BEEN OUTSIDE TO OBSERVE THE LNDG, BUT WERE UNAVAILABLE TO ANSWER OUR REQUEST FOR ARPT ADVISORIES. THEY STATED THAT THEY HAD BEEN INSIDE A HANGAR, WAXING AN AIRPLANE, WHICH WAS NOT TRUE. OUR DISPATCH OFFICE HAD SPOKEN WITH THEM 15 MINS EARLIER TO INFORM THEM OF OUR ARR. HAD AN 'X' BEEN APPROPRIATELY MARKED DIRECTLY ON THE RWY, I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DISCERN THAT THE RWY WAS CLOSED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR ADVISED THAT THE RWY WAS CLOSED FOR NUMBER AND STRIP PAINTING. RPTR STATED THAT ARPT PERSONNEL CLAIMED OTHER ACFT HAD LANDED ON THE CLOSED RWY EARLIER THAT DAY. WHEN QUESTIONED BY THE RPTR ABOUT THE 'X' PLACEMENT BEING LEFT OFF THE RWY APCH END, HE WAS TOLD THAT THEY WERE TOLD TO PLACE IT IN THAT POS. TO THE RPTR'S KNOWLEDGE, NO NOTAM WAS EVER SENT ADVISING OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY. THE RPTR ADVISED THAT THE RWY WAS OPENED 'A FEW DAYS LATER.'
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.