Narrative:

On approach to 0co2 I noticed a car entering the runway from a ramp area. I initiated a go around, and noticed further traffic (trucks, construction equipment) at the end of the runway. After executing the go around during the crosswind segment, I came back to see the surface activity on the runway. The car and other construction equipment was still on the northwest end of the runway. I made one more pass and decided it was unsafe to land at the airport. The construction crew and the car had no flags or strobe lights. No NOTAMS were issued. The car and the construction crew saw the airplane, but made no attempts to vacate the runway to allow for a safe landing. I returned to the departure airport. The flight was otherwise uneventful and safe. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter made it clear that the equipment on the runway was there intentionally and that developers of the land adjacent to the airport have been using the runway as an access road to their development. He states there is an ongoing confrontation with the developers, the county, the private owners of the airport and the pilots using the airport, a privately owned public access facility. He feels that notwithstanding the dispute, the right of way to access the runway belongs to the airport and not the ground vehicles. He stresses that no attempt is made to advise of ground traffic via the NOTAM process. No attempt has been made to identify and/or highlight the presence of the vehicles and the vehicles make no pretense of ceding the right of way to aircraft. He states that in the instance addressed in this report, he ultimately gave up and returned to his airport of departure. This happened even though he made a go around over the vehicles as they entered the runway and returned again in an attempt to indicate his desire to use the runway for the purpose intended. He feels that, whatever the outcome of the legal dispute over the ultimate fate of the airport is, that it remains an airport until such time as it is closed. The use of the runway as a routine vehicle access for other purposes constitutes a hazard to safe navigation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF PILATUS P3 RPTS THAT MEN, VEHICLES, AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ENTERED THE RWY AT 0CO2 PRIVATE AIRFIELD DURING HIS APCH.

Narrative: ON APCH TO 0CO2 I NOTICED A CAR ENTERING THE RWY FROM A RAMP AREA. I INITIATED A GO AROUND, AND NOTICED FURTHER TFC (TRUCKS, CONSTRUCTION EQUIP) AT THE END OF THE RWY. AFTER EXECUTING THE GO AROUND DURING THE XWIND SEGMENT, I CAME BACK TO SEE THE SURFACE ACTIVITY ON THE RWY. THE CAR AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION EQUIP WAS STILL ON THE NW END OF THE RWY. I MADE ONE MORE PASS AND DECIDED IT WAS UNSAFE TO LAND AT THE ARPT. THE CONSTRUCTION CREW AND THE CAR HAD NO FLAGS OR STROBE LIGHTS. NO NOTAMS WERE ISSUED. THE CAR AND THE CONSTRUCTION CREW SAW THE AIRPLANE, BUT MADE NO ATTEMPTS TO VACATE THE RWY TO ALLOW FOR A SAFE LNDG. I RETURNED TO THE DEP ARPT. THE FLT WAS OTHERWISE UNEVENTFUL AND SAFE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE EQUIP ON THE RWY WAS THERE INTENTIONALLY AND THAT DEVELOPERS OF THE LAND ADJACENT TO THE ARPT HAVE BEEN USING THE RWY AS AN ACCESS ROAD TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT. HE STATES THERE IS AN ONGOING CONFRONTATION WITH THE DEVELOPERS, THE COUNTY, THE PRIVATE OWNERS OF THE ARPT AND THE PLTS USING THE ARPT, A PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC ACCESS FACILITY. HE FEELS THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE DISPUTE, THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ACCESS THE RWY BELONGS TO THE ARPT AND NOT THE GND VEHICLES. HE STRESSES THAT NO ATTEMPT IS MADE TO ADVISE OF GND TFC VIA THE NOTAM PROCESS. NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO IDENTIFY AND/OR HIGHLIGHT THE PRESENCE OF THE VEHICLES AND THE VEHICLES MAKE NO PRETENSE OF CEDING THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ACFT. HE STATES THAT IN THE INSTANCE ADDRESSED IN THIS RPT, HE ULTIMATELY GAVE UP AND RETURNED TO HIS ARPT OF DEP. THIS HAPPENED EVEN THOUGH HE MADE A GO AROUND OVER THE VEHICLES AS THEY ENTERED THE RWY AND RETURNED AGAIN IN AN ATTEMPT TO INDICATE HIS DESIRE TO USE THE RWY FOR THE PURPOSE INTENDED. HE FEELS THAT, WHATEVER THE OUTCOME OF THE LEGAL DISPUTE OVER THE ULTIMATE FATE OF THE ARPT IS, THAT IT REMAINS AN ARPT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS IT IS CLOSED. THE USE OF THE RWY AS A ROUTINE VEHICLE ACCESS FOR OTHER PURPOSES CONSTITUTES A HAZARD TO SAFE NAVIGATION.

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.