U.S. Senator Lands Plane on Closed Runway
- Thread starter Rizer
- Start date
Joestructor
New Member
I don't understand.. why would he land on a closed runway, endangering the lives of the workers if he wasn't in a serious emergency situation..
When I was stationed at Brooks AFB in Texas, we had someone land on our closed runway (which had been closed for about 30 years at that point) instead of Stinson Field. Oops. Hard to believe anyone could make that mistake, but I guess it happens.
staplegun
Well-Known Member
Original article.
No X-man, that Inhofe
Wednesday, October 27, 2010; A21
Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) was flying his twin-engine Cessna 340 down to Port Isabel, Tex., on Thursday, headed to his house on South Padre Island. It's something he's done every so often for the past 50 years.
There were these huge (60 feet long by 10 feet wide) yellow X's on the main runway, which aren't there to mark the landing spot. The big signs were laid out to indicate that the runway was closed. There were workmen painting and doing general maintenance on the runway.
Inhofe, who was traveling with three others, told us Tuesday that he was "getting ready to land, then I saw a big X," and the workers and equipment. So he flew the six-seater over the workers and landed "well off to the side," he said.
Runway closures and other important information are highlighted in what's called a Notice to Airmen, or NOTAM, which all pilots are supposed to read before take-off. Inhoff said he "didn't have a NOTAM."
An airport official - "he hates me, I don't know why," Inhoff said - apparently was none too pleased with the use of a closed runway.
"I called the [Federal Aviation Administration] when I landed to tell them what had happened" and to see whether there was any problem, he said Tuesday. Since there was no accident, there appeared to be no significant problem, he said.
Inhoff, by the way, has been flying GOP candidates around their states to help them campaign.
On Sunday, Inhofe headed back home-but not without incident. Fortunately, he didn't try to take off on the closed runway. Actually, he didn't try to take off on any of the four bi-directional runways at the airport. He chose instead to use a taxiway.
"I really didn't have a choice," he explained, "given the size of the plane. The taxiway is very wide and long, better than the rough runways" at that airport. "There was no alternative," he said. And he notified the airport official that he intended to use the taxiway.
But landing on a closed runway and using a taxiway to take off could be considered major no-nos by the FAA, which can suspend Inhofe's pilot's license if it decides there have been serious infractions. Such a decision would be appealable to the National Transportation Safety Board. The FAA declined to comment.
In practice, though, suspensions are not often imposed, we're told, unless the infractions involved criminal activity - drugs, for example - or injuries or were intentional.
Pilots may voluntarily file a report to explain what happened and that usually suffices to end the matter.
Inhofe's best bet, though, might be to make sure the Republicans win the Senate next week so he can be chairman of the Transportation aviation subcommittee.
License for life.
No X-man, that Inhofe
Wednesday, October 27, 2010; A21
Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) was flying his twin-engine Cessna 340 down to Port Isabel, Tex., on Thursday, headed to his house on South Padre Island. It's something he's done every so often for the past 50 years.
There were these huge (60 feet long by 10 feet wide) yellow X's on the main runway, which aren't there to mark the landing spot. The big signs were laid out to indicate that the runway was closed. There were workmen painting and doing general maintenance on the runway.
Inhofe, who was traveling with three others, told us Tuesday that he was "getting ready to land, then I saw a big X," and the workers and equipment. So he flew the six-seater over the workers and landed "well off to the side," he said.
Runway closures and other important information are highlighted in what's called a Notice to Airmen, or NOTAM, which all pilots are supposed to read before take-off. Inhoff said he "didn't have a NOTAM."
An airport official - "he hates me, I don't know why," Inhoff said - apparently was none too pleased with the use of a closed runway.
"I called the [Federal Aviation Administration] when I landed to tell them what had happened" and to see whether there was any problem, he said Tuesday. Since there was no accident, there appeared to be no significant problem, he said.
Inhoff, by the way, has been flying GOP candidates around their states to help them campaign.
On Sunday, Inhofe headed back home-but not without incident. Fortunately, he didn't try to take off on the closed runway. Actually, he didn't try to take off on any of the four bi-directional runways at the airport. He chose instead to use a taxiway.
"I really didn't have a choice," he explained, "given the size of the plane. The taxiway is very wide and long, better than the rough runways" at that airport. "There was no alternative," he said. And he notified the airport official that he intended to use the taxiway.
But landing on a closed runway and using a taxiway to take off could be considered major no-nos by the FAA, which can suspend Inhofe's pilot's license if it decides there have been serious infractions. Such a decision would be appealable to the National Transportation Safety Board. The FAA declined to comment.
In practice, though, suspensions are not often imposed, we're told, unless the infractions involved criminal activity - drugs, for example - or injuries or were intentional.
Pilots may voluntarily file a report to explain what happened and that usually suffices to end the matter.
Inhofe's best bet, though, might be to make sure the Republicans win the Senate next week so he can be chairman of the Transportation aviation subcommittee.
License for life.
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
Reminds me of a story from a tower controller that I may have posted here, but I'll tell it again.
An SR-22 lands on a taxiway in severe clear VFR. Tower controller decides to give the guy a break and just tells him to "contact ground". The pilot reads back but adds, "sorry for landing on the taxiway". Now that it's on the record, the controller gives the guy a number to call but still plans on going easy on him. The pilots defense for landing on the taxiway? "By the time I realized I was lined up with a taxiway, I was at 400 feet and already committed to landing plus I didn't see any other airplanes in the way".:drool:
I've never flown an SR-22, but I'll take a wild guess and say that even if he didn't go-around which he should have, 400 feet should be plenty of time to just scoot over to the right a few feet and land on the actual runway. It's kind of scary that these people share the sky with us. Breaking a rule because its more convenient doesn't fly with the FSDO I'm sure, especially when the infraction involves landing somewhere other than an active runway.
KLB
Well-Known Member
Yep. Thats my take on it. He didnt want to land on the other two runways because they were unimproved. The best thing to do would be to go to another airport. But since it's such an incovenience to him, he decides to fly over a crew working on the runway and land long. All kinds of things could have gone wrong there.
exneophyte
Well-Known Member
I love the part about "landing to the side" as if it made it a safe landing.
A150K
Well-Known Member
Not checking NOTAMS...Check
Departing a taxiway...check
I'm not familiar with the airport involved, but were there really no other airports nearby for him to use as alternates? Did his fuel situation prevent that? Or was he just being an arrogant, overly entitled politician?
Departing a taxiway...check
I'm not familiar with the airport involved, but were there really no other airports nearby for him to use as alternates? Did his fuel situation prevent that? Or was he just being an arrogant, overly entitled politician?
.
beechpilot84
Well-Known Member
That's why I always carry a four foot section of garden hose with me. If I need to land like this guy did I can quickly siphon out the fuel in the tanks before the FAA gets there and tell them I ran out of gas. :insane:
MichaelC
Well-Known Member
http://www.runwayfinder.com/?loc=PIL
I definitely think the latter. Plenty of airports in the vicinity. Sounds like a case of anti-authority.
SmitteyB
Well-Known Member
Continuing a landing to an unsafe runway...Check.
Revoke his certificate for a year. Plain and simple. That's what they would do to any one of us!
spasekace
WHOligan
Exactly. "How dare the government tell me where I can and can't land (or takeoff) MY airplane!"
Maybe that with a dose of raging incompetence thrown in for good measure. Put those 2 together and you've got a winning combination.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Yes.. line it up right from the start or go around. At 400 feet, assuming I wasn't already well past the actual runway threshold, there's no reason I can conceive of where under otherwise normal circumstances I couldn't go around or even manage some sort of crazy sidestep in any model airplane I've flown to date, up to and including the Embraer. Stuff like what you just noted above is just laziness, negligence, or stupidity. Possibly a combination of all three.
KLB
Well-Known Member
Going around in a small twin at that altitude is a piece of cake! It's as simple as going missed at DH/DA.