SMA CFI LANDS HIS ACFT ON CLOSED RWY WHEN SURFACE WIND CONDITIONS EXCEED ACFT XWIND CAPABILITIES.

Date: 1991-10 · Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear

Anomalies: conflict-ground-conflict|less-severe|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-landing-without-clearance|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-other-unknown|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-far|inflight-event-encounter-other-unknown

Synopsis

SMA CFI LANDS HIS ACFT ON CLOSED RWY WHEN SURFACE WIND CONDITIONS EXCEED ACFT XWIND CAPABILITIES.

Narrative

THE EVENT TOOK PLACE ON A ROUTINE TRAINING FLT ON THE AFTERNOON OF OCT/XX/91. MY STUDENT AND I WERE WORKING ON SOME INST INSTRUCTION. BEFORE TKOF; THE LCL WX WAS MONITORED ON THE KISSIMMEE AWOS SYS. THE WX; PARTICULARLY THE WINDS; WERE 060 AT 11 KTS ON TKOF. THE ARPT WAS USING RWY 33 AS OUR CROSS RWY; 6/24 WAS CLOSED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ON A TAXIWAY. AFTER APPROX 1 HR; WE RETURNED TO KISSIMMEE AND AGAIN MONITORED AWOS. THE WINDS HAD INCREASED IN VELOCITY TO 17 GUSTING TO 25 KTS. THE WIND DIRECTION WAS STILL 060 AND RWY 33 WAS STILL IN USE. AS THIS WAS A DIRECT XWIND; AND EXCEEDED THE XWIND COMPONENT OF MY AIRPLANE; I ELECTED TO LAND ON RWY 6 IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE SAFE COMPLETION OF MY FLT. THE ARPT IS AN UNCTLED ARPT; AND ALL MY ACTIONS WERE CONDUCTED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF AN UNCTLED ARPT. IT WAS MY FIRM BELIEF THAT LNDG ON RWY 6 (CLOSED DUE TO TAXIWAY CONSTRUCTION); WAS THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE IN AN INCREASINGLY DANGEROUS SITUATION. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT GREAT CARE WAS CONDUCTED IN NOT POSING A TFC THREAT OR A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO ANY OTHER AIRPLANE OR PERSON OPERATING ABOVE OR ON THE ARPT PROPERTY. THE FLT WAS COMPLETED SAFELY AND AGAIN GREAT DILIGENCE IN LOOKING FOR TFC BOTH IN THE AIR AND ON THE GND WAS EXERCISED. TO SUPPLEMENT THAT; THE LNDG WAS MADE ON THE FIXED DISTANCE MARKER WHICH HELD ME SHORT OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND YET LANDED ME LONG ENOUGH AS TO NOT POSE A THREAT TO PARKED TFC AT THE BEGINNING OF RWY 6. THIS PARKED TFC WAS AN AIRSHIP; AND IN ADDITION TO A HIGH APCH PATH; I APCHED WELL TO THE R OF THE AIRSHIP. THE AIRSHIP AND ITS POS WAS NEVER LOST SIGHT OF. AS PIC; IT WAS AND IS MY BELIEF THAT IN ORDER TO SAFELY COMPLETE THE FLT IT WAS NECESSARY TO LAND ON THE CLOSED RWY 6. AT NO TIME DID MY ACFT ENDANGER OR HAVE CONFLICT WITH ANY OTHER ACFT OR PERSON ON THE ARPT PROPERTY. ONE LAST NOTE SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED: THE CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT AT ALL ON RWY 6; BUT THE TAXIWAY ADJACENT TO 6. TO CONCLUDE; THE PROBLEM AROSE FROM THE FACT THAT THE ARPT MGR STATED THAT BY LNDG ON A CLOSED RWY I CARELESSLY AND RECKLESSLY OPERATED MY AIRPLANE. AT NO TIME DID I OPERATE IN A DANGEROUS MANNER AND CAREFUL THOUGHT WAS GIVEN TO MY ACTIONS.

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.