Narrative:

I was flying the pattern at mkc. Runway 1/19 was closed for landing and takeoff operations for the day; by NOTAM and notice on the ATIS. It was open for taxiing for a portion of its length; primarily between the intersection with runway 3/21; northward to taxiway D. I did a few touch-and-goes to runway 3; and then requested clearance for a full stop landing; and was given clearance for runway 3. After landing on runway 3; I exited the active runway left; onto runway 1; at the intersection with runway 1/19 and runway 3/21. About 300 ft in front of me; another GA aircraft was crossing runway 1 at taxiway D; going west; moving from right to left as viewed from my position. My speed at that time was about 25 mph; and there was no risk of collision; due to the significant distance between the aircraft; and our relative taxi speeds. The tower controller then directed that I 'not turn onto runway 1 without prior clearance to do so.' the previous day; I had flown into the airport under the same situation; landed on runway 3; and was directed by the tower controller to 'turn left on runway 1; speed allowing.' I had been able to do this; and was directed to then taxi via taxiway D to the west ramp. On the following day; the day of this incident; aircraft were again using closed runway 1 as a taxiway between the runway intxns and taxiway D. Due to the fact that runway 1 was closed for takeoffs and lndgs; I treated it as another taxiway; and exited the active runway onto it without clearance. In this case; I had a clear view of the area in front of me; and no hazard existed. If I had not exited onto the closed runway 1; then taxiway D would have been the next available runway exit point; which would have been a 130 degree turn to the left; a much greater turn angle; and one in which visibility would not have been as clear. What could have been done to prevent this occurrence? If runway 1; while a portion of it is closed and the rest of it is being essentially used as a taxiway; cannot be treated as a taxiway; ie; clearance must be given to exit onto it; then it would be helpful; in this unusual case; for advance notice to be given to the pilot before landing not to exit the active runway onto the closed runway without prior clearance.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C182 PLT LNDG RWY 3 AT MKC EXITS ONTO RWY 1 WHICH IS NOTAMED CLOSED FOR TKOF AND LNDGS. TOWER ADVISES NOT TO EXIT ON RWY 1 UNLESS CLEARED TO DO SO.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING THE PATTERN AT MKC. RWY 1/19 WAS CLOSED FOR LNDG AND TKOF OPS FOR THE DAY; BY NOTAM AND NOTICE ON THE ATIS. IT WAS OPEN FOR TAXIING FOR A PORTION OF ITS LENGTH; PRIMARILY BTWN THE INTXN WITH RWY 3/21; NORTHWARD TO TXWY D. I DID A FEW TOUCH-AND-GOES TO RWY 3; AND THEN REQUESTED CLRNC FOR A FULL STOP LNDG; AND WAS GIVEN CLRNC FOR RWY 3. AFTER LNDG ON RWY 3; I EXITED THE ACTIVE RWY L; ONTO RWY 1; AT THE INTXN WITH RWY 1/19 AND RWY 3/21. ABOUT 300 FT IN FRONT OF ME; ANOTHER GA ACFT WAS XING RWY 1 AT TXWY D; GOING W; MOVING FROM R TO L AS VIEWED FROM MY POS. MY SPD AT THAT TIME WAS ABOUT 25 MPH; AND THERE WAS NO RISK OF COLLISION; DUE TO THE SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE BTWN THE ACFT; AND OUR RELATIVE TAXI SPDS. THE TWR CTLR THEN DIRECTED THAT I 'NOT TURN ONTO RWY 1 WITHOUT PRIOR CLRNC TO DO SO.' THE PREVIOUS DAY; I HAD FLOWN INTO THE ARPT UNDER THE SAME SITUATION; LANDED ON RWY 3; AND WAS DIRECTED BY THE TWR CTLR TO 'TURN L ON RWY 1; SPD ALLOWING.' I HAD BEEN ABLE TO DO THIS; AND WAS DIRECTED TO THEN TAXI VIA TXWY D TO THE W RAMP. ON THE FOLLOWING DAY; THE DAY OF THIS INCIDENT; ACFT WERE AGAIN USING CLOSED RWY 1 AS A TXWY BTWN THE RWY INTXNS AND TXWY D. DUE TO THE FACT THAT RWY 1 WAS CLOSED FOR TKOFS AND LNDGS; I TREATED IT AS ANOTHER TXWY; AND EXITED THE ACTIVE RWY ONTO IT WITHOUT CLRNC. IN THIS CASE; I HAD A CLR VIEW OF THE AREA IN FRONT OF ME; AND NO HAZARD EXISTED. IF I HAD NOT EXITED ONTO THE CLOSED RWY 1; THEN TXWY D WOULD HAVE BEEN THE NEXT AVAILABLE RWY EXIT POINT; WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN A 130 DEG TURN TO THE L; A MUCH GREATER TURN ANGLE; AND ONE IN WHICH VISIBILITY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AS CLR. WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO PREVENT THIS OCCURRENCE? IF RWY 1; WHILE A PORTION OF IT IS CLOSED AND THE REST OF IT IS BEING ESSENTIALLY USED AS A TXWY; CANNOT BE TREATED AS A TXWY; IE; CLRNC MUST BE GIVEN TO EXIT ONTO IT; THEN IT WOULD BE HELPFUL; IN THIS UNUSUAL CASE; FOR ADVANCE NOTICE TO BE GIVEN TO THE PLT BEFORE LNDG NOT TO EXIT THE ACTIVE RWY ONTO THE CLOSED RWY WITHOUT PRIOR CLRNC.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.