|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

10-29-2010, 08:02 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,275
|
|
As Painter John noted, it seems that very few people check on NOTAMs. When we have to close our runway for needed maintenance (crack fill, restriping, etc), we always get numerous people who don't know about it. That is with plenty of advance notice.
I try to accommodate them if it can be done safely but I have had to notify them by radio that the runway is closed.
|

10-29-2010, 06:50 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sydney, Aust.
Posts: 820
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by terrykohler
I agree that short notices should be avoided whenever possible, but this should NEVER be a safety issue.
|
I couldn't disagree more, particularly in Australia.
As I said earlier, to get anywhere down under, you need to fly for a long time. In quite a few instances I can think of, there are no suitable alternates within an hours flying time, yet alone your 45 minute reserve. Carrying more fuel isn't always an option, therefore you are relying on the NOTAM process to ensure your flight can be safely conducted. Afterall, this is the whole reason PNR exists, the point at which you are committed to continuing to your destination.
Unforseen weather I can understand, and if it went below the VFR alternate minima I would continue anyway if I couldn't reach an alternate, perhaps upgrade to IFR if required/qualified, and I'd be quite prepared to land on a taxiway if there was a Bonanza sitting gear-up on the runway, but for planned maintenance there's absolutely zero excuse for not NOTAM'ing a runway/airport/navaid closure. Or publishing said NOTAM with 90 minutes notice.
__________________
Once you have tasted flight you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return - Leonardo DaVinci
My Flickr gallery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/35521362@N06/
RV-9A - Finished on 10th February 2016 after 4 years, 9 months and 19 days! The 1020th RV-9 flying.
First flight 26th March 2016. Essential specs 145KTAS @ 2400RPM, 8000', 24.2LPH, Initial RoC 1800FPM.
|

10-29-2010, 08:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 686
|
|
FWIW, when I spoke to the FAA about the short-notice non-emergency closing and my concern about an aircraft arriving min- or emergency-fuel, he mentioned a few options to a pilot in that situation: (a) landing on the taxiway, (b) asking the construction crew to remove the mobile X's at each end and re-open the airfield, or (c) diverting to a nearby airport. Yes experienced pilots would likely consider all three, but a student or inexperience pilot...maybe not.
* Break * Break *
About the 3-day prior limitation...well I did some searching on the FAA site and found JO 7930.2M and this information within:
3-2-3. FILING NOTAM INFORMATION WITH FSSs
NOTAM information should not be filed with an FSS prior to 3 days before the expected condition is to occur. A NOTAM shall be transmitted as soon as practical but not more than 3 days before the expected condition is to occur.
1-4-1. WORD MEANINGS
As used in this order:
b. ?Should? means a procedure is recommended.
So the word in question here is 'should'. IMHO, a known closure deserves more than 3-days notice and therefore if I was an airport manager would use discretion and the latitude inherent with the word 'should' in order to publish the closure with as much notice as possible.
* Break * Break *
Thanks for your inputs, they are all good and I'll pass them a long to the airport authority.
The person I've been speaking with genuinely seems to be receptive to doing the right thing, but it is frustrating being part of the on-going learning process.
Fly safe,
-Jim
|

10-29-2010, 08:28 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,275
|
|
I wonder about wanting it more than three days in advance. Three days out I don't know if the weather will permit a trip. Even one day out is iffy. If you know about a runway closure seven days out will that really help more than three days?
I agree with 90 minutes being unacceptable but three days seems reasonable.
|

10-29-2010, 08:36 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 531
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fehdxl
A NOTAM shall be transmitted as soon as practical but not more than 3 days before the expected condition is to occur.
|
And note for your argument...in the bolded section "shall" is operative word not "should". So if they knew the schedule with a good degree of certainty a week in advance, they should in any practical case always file it 3 days in advance. (Just my $0.02 of course.  )
__________________
-Rick Greer, VAF #2492
|

10-29-2010, 09:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 686
|
|
For a day trip, and a two-hour closure I see your point. However, their logic also applied to the daily 2000-0700 local closure associated with this same construction project. If I left on a week-long trip on Sunday only to find out on Wednesday of a Friday closure, I agree it would not be a safety of flight issue. But it sure would be a frustrating logistical problem of landing at another airport when my car is in the hangar or having to significantly alter plans with short-notice.
To add a more to the story (there always is), about two-weeks after this 90-minute-notice closure, they closed the airport from 1400L until 0700L with 7-hours notice. It had been NOTAM'd to be closed daily from 2000L until 0700L for weeks, so it was the additional time during the afternoon and evening that they only gave 7-hours notice to. Yes, 7-hours notice mostly (but not completely) alleviates the min-fuel situation, but not the logistical. IMHO, still grossly inadequate when they knew about this particular closing event for 6 days prior.
The bottom line to me is IMHO, there is no place for the "I've got a secret" attitude in aviation. I view the fact the airport authority knew of the closure but didn't tell us via a NOTAM is keeping a secret.
Thanks for your thoughts.
-Jim
|

10-30-2010, 10:30 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,275
|
|
Jim, sounds like you need to talk with airport management. Then if that is not productive...AOPA safety folks since it may be an FAA issue.
|

10-30-2010, 12:52 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Giddings Municipal Airport (KGYB)
Posts: 196
|
|
What then is the proceedure for an emergency closure? Monitor the radio until the mess is cleaned up? Or should controlers overseeing a given area be the ones to redirect traffic, after they have been notified? so the ground support can focus on cleaning up the situation.
Repairs, maintence and other such things on a runway/taxiway, lighting system etc.. are not emergencies, therefore closing anything 90 days ahead of time is just silly.
Certainly there is some type of notification that can be posted a week or more prior to a maintence event so that EVERYONE knows about it.. Perhaps a TFR? perhaps a new acronym, something like an SMN "Scheduled Maintence Notification" ? I dont know..
Sure Destination plus 30 or 45 is a great rule of thumb, but like the Austrailian guy said.. there just arent secondary airports with in the 30 or 45 minute range.. So posting an SMN 2 weeks prior would keep everyone aware of whats happening at that airport, and they could make other plans.
I know if we have some big mess out here that would render the airport unsafe to use.. I will put a large X over the runway after i have contacted Austin Aproach and Houston as well... There are plenty of options to land around here well with in destination plus 30.
|

11-01-2010, 08:49 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,275
|
|
Read the following about a US Senator landing on a closed runway. Imagine what would happen to me if I did this. Bolding added by me
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#203537
"Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) says he won't guarantee he'll be more vigilant about checking NOTAMs after he landed on a closed runway occupied by maintenance workers ten days ago in Texas. "People who fly a lot just don't do it," Inhofe told the Tulsa World. "I won't make any commitments." Inhofe added that while "technically" pilots should "probably" check NOTAMs, it would be impractical for him to do so on the many flights he makes to small airports in Oklahoma each year. The FAA has confirmed it is investigating the Oct 21 incident in which Inhofe landed a Cessna 340 on an occupied closed runway at Port Isabel-Cameron County Airport, Texas, He was reportedly carrying three others in the light twin when he made the landing on a runway bearing oversized painted Xs, a large red truck, other vehicles, and construction workers. The workers were using loud equipment at the time and didn't hear the plane's approach, so one person ran to warn them. A supervisor immediately reported the incident to the FAA and told TulsaWorld.com he was "still shaking" when he reached the hangar to confront the pilot. For his part, Inhofe said he didn't see the Xs until late on final and was concerned he might not be able to abort safely. He said he landed "well off to the side" of the workers. There were no injuries. A few days after his unorthodox arrival, Inhofe Saturday notified "an airport official" of his intent and used a taxiway for departure, according to The Washington Post. The senator has since spoken with the FAA and will "just wait and see what happens." That hasn't stopped him from offering reporters some form of explanation.
TulsaWorld.com reports that Inhofe said he was unaware of the runway's closure NOTAM because of "a bad relationship he has with one individual, who the Senator said declined to take his phone calls before the flight and did not tell him about the NOTAM." In the Washington Post's coverage, Inhofe said an airport official "hates me, I don't know why." The FAA's current interest is why the landing happened while the runway was clearly marked with the requisite oversized Xs. It will attempt to determine why Inhofe was apparently not aware of a NOTAM about the closure and investigate the circumstances of the taxiway departure. The airport has four runways but according to AirNav all except the main one (13/31) are in poor condition. In his 50 years as a pilot, Inhofe has experienced at least two other publicized incidents. In 1999, Inhofe suffered an emergency landing when his aircraft lost its propeller, and in 2006 he ground-looped a Vans RV-8 built by his son."
Last edited by Ron Lee : 11-01-2010 at 11:14 AM.
|

11-01-2010, 09:47 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,378
|
|
Inhofe
Amazing huh! I think its called the "Sense of Entitlement" disease. Yup, same one Tiger had.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:33 AM.
|