Saw this on another web forum. Oops. I guess there is really no excuse, but who knows, maybed it didn't look that bad from the air or he heard there was only a few inches of snow. Airport was NOTAMed closed though.

From the Newport Miner newspaper:
- - - - - - - - -



Four survive failed landing on closed runway

By Youssef Sleiman
Of The Miner

SULLIVAN LAKE – A winter plane ride to Sullivan Lake ended suddenly Wednesday afternoon, Jan. 6, when a Cessna 182 airplane tried to land in a half foot of snow on the closed airstrip near the Sullivan Lake Ranger station. The pilot, a Deer Park resident, and three passengers were unharmed, but the plane was wrecked.

Upon landing, the front wheel dug into the snow and stuck, flipping the plane onto its wings and top.

Deputy fire chief Scott Doughty from Pend Oreille Fire District No. 2, who responded to the crash, said none of the people were severely injured in the accident. One man had some scratches on his hand, Doughty said. The plane, however, had to be removed by a salvage company, transportation department officials said.

Doughty said fire crews arrived in case of a fire or spill, but neither resulted from the accident. Doughty estimated the plane may be a complete loss.

The pilot’s name was unavailable from the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board, which concurrently investigate airplane crashes. The FAA did not return calls from The Miner. NTSB officials declined to release the name but did say the pilot was from Deer Park and was not the registered owner of the plane.

The 1,765-foot grass runway had not been plowed since the Sullivan Lake Airport closed Oct. 1. Snow was reported at 6 to 8 inches deep.

Forest special uses coordinator Kim DiRienz said she saw the plane fly by the airport earlier. It’s standard procedure for pilots to fly over towerless airports, to warn people near the airstrip and to judge landing. DiRienz said she thought the pass was odd since the airport was closed. The closure was announced by WSDOT and in airport directories.

DiRienz, who spoke to the occupants of the plane, confirmed the landing was not an emergency or medical-related.

DiRienz said they told her that they had visited the Ione Airport, which is owned and plowed by the city of Ione. Shortly after flying by the Sullivan Lake Airport, the pilot made an attempt to land on the unplowed strip.

WSDOT owns 17 airports, including the Sullivan Lake Airport, and most of them are closed in the winter. The U.S. Forest Service maintains the airport with the ranger station nearby. Many WSDOT airports are used for medical emergency transportation since most are located in remote areas.

seriously if pilots would just check the NOTAMS...A guy did something like this in oregon not to long ago and a guy also landed in Tieton this last year before it was open and cause 3 very large ruts that I just so happen to have to fill back in since I was the only pilot volunteer. Please please please check notams pilots!

Don't get too rightous about checking the NOTAMs. There's more to this story.

The airport isn't closed unless the NOTAM has been issued. And, Washington State DOT is notoriously lax about requesting the FAA to issue a NOTAM to close them. Most years they forget. I just checked the FAA website
https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/
and it says

09S SULLIVAN LAKE STATE

No active NOTAMs for this location.

The relevant law is in the Washington Administrative Code.

468-250-030
Opening and closing of airports.
(1) Because of surface conditions and/or snow cover, the following state airports will be closed to all traffic (except in an emergency) from approximately October 1 to June 1 of each year, by NOTAM.

(a) Bandera

(b) Lester

(c) Nason Creek

(d) Stehekin

(e) Avey

(f) Lake Wenatchee

(g) Copalis

(h) Sullivan Lake

(i) Tieton

(j) Ranger Creek

(k) Skykomish

(l) Easton

(2) The following state airports may be closed during the winter due to conditions, by NOTAM.

(a) Winthrop/Intercity

(b) Little Goose

(c) Lower Granite

(d) Quillayute

(e) Lower Monumental

(f) Woodland

(3) Opening and closing dates may change at some airports, and pilots shall check NOTAMS prior to using any state airport. It is strongly suggested that even when open, pilots should check with the aeronautics division on current conditions, especially at those airports located in mountainous areas.



[Statutory Authority: Chapter 47.68 RCW. 96-17-018 (Order 164), recodified as § 468-250-030, filed 8/13/96, effective 9/13/96. Statutory Authority: RCW 47.68.100 and 47.68.210. 83-11-041 (Order 80), § 12-40-030, filed 5/18/83.]

My intent wasn't to be rightous about checking NOTAMS. Honestly most of us here probably aren't good about checking NOTAMS everytime we go smash some bugs around home base, myself included.

From the Airport Facility Directory:

- ARPT CLSD 1 OCT TO 1 JUN.
- FOR RY CONDS PRIOR TO USE CALL 360-651-6300 OR 1-800-552-0666.

I posted this cause its a incident at a rural airstrip that some of us have probably used from time to time. We have all done stupid sh!t and gotten off lucky, maybe even realized how close we came to bending metal till afterwords. I know I have! I am sure that pilot didn't intend to crash and thought it was just gonna be a fun trip to Sullivan lake and back. I am glad no one was hurt. This incident just reinforced for me the importance of not getting complacent when out 'playing' in your backyard.

Well obviously I am a little cranky from endless rain and wind here on the coast, poor flying weather and the steelhead rivers are blown out. End of rant, gonna go hope for sun on the coast and good snow in the mountains.

Matt

Thanks for the AFD info, fern_hopper.

However, in regard to Washington State Airports, it doesn't really matter what is in the AFD, what is in the WSDOT Aviation website, or what they say when you call them. None of those have any legal weight. They are public airports that are open unless closed by NOTAM. And, there is no NOTAM. So, I was just emphasizing that checking the NOTAMs wouldn't have saved him.

Two winters ago, I was flying over a runway that had a light skiff of snow on it, maybe an inch at the most. I decided it would be fun to make some tracks, and I was on very short final when I panicked and thought it looked like it could be deeper than that. I did a go-around, then decided not to land after all. I drove through there a few days later and discovered the snow was about eight inches deep and fairly heavy. That was pure luck on my part to avoid the same scenario as this poor schlep.

So, a question for those who land nose-draggers in the snow. What clues do you look for to determine the runway condition? It doesn't seem to me to be prudent to try to drag a wheel unless you've got conventional gear.

Seasonal closures are not covered by NOTAMs. Longer term restrictions have to be moved to the A/FD. I don't know how the State of Washington statutes affect these issues, evidently a case of state laws/statutes, being unaware of the FAA's NOTAM rules, but in a legal sense, pilots are still bound by FARs which require us to check or be aware of everything available - or words to that effect. BTW, I'm not a lawyer.

At OSH a couple of years ago, I wandered into the FAA's area to complain about the way the fire TFRs are handled. After being handed from desk to desk, I ended up at a lawyer's booth, and his commment that he kept returning to, was: The PIC has the ultimate responsibility to check everything available to ensure a safe flight. A CYA for him, but I think that't the ultimate end that you would come up against, in an argument with the Feds.

Back to the Sullivan Lake situation, I had a discussion with the WSDOT about Rogersburg this winter, not having a NOTAM about its closure. This is where Paul Wolf, WSDOT, explained to me, the procedure of posting seasonal closures in the A/FD. I noticed that Rogersburg was not in Kevbert's list of airstrips, but is in the A/FD, no NOTAM, but is closed. Calling the telephone number should confirm these notes in the A/FD. I guess the FAA does not want to fill the NOTAM list with items that would be reoccurring for an extended period of time.

It isn't just the State of Washington, after this discussion with WSDOT, I looked around the countryside for other examples, and Washington National, DCA, came to mind. I checked NOTAMs for DCA, and the NOTAM list does not say that I can't land at DCA, but restrictions are listed in a number of other places.

The A/FD is available online - not the easiest database to search, but is there. Most of these notes in the A/FD are on Airnav.com also, but I don't know that the lack of being posted on Airnav would be a legal defense.

Jack

If you land airplanes in snow of unknown depth or composition, you should plan on leaving the airplane there. If it works out for you, good on yer. If not, it'll probably look like this. There is really no reliable and consistent means by which to determine whether it's safe to land in untracked snow.

If you see an "airport" with no tracks, no signs that it's been plowed, etc.....you might think twice about landing there. The A/FD provides information that I guarantee you the FAA can and may hang their enforcement hat on, but the bottom line is if you wreck it, you obviously did something wrong.....

I would respectfully point out that, WHEREVER you are landing an airplane, it is YOUR responsibility, regardless of what the A/FD or NOTAMS say, to determine if its safe to land there. Do we need a NOTAM to tell us a snow covered runway isn't open, when the dang thing is obviously covered with snow, and the surrounding country has a bunch of snow on it? If so, we're hosed, folks.

Unfortunately, if the article is indeed accurate, what this means is that some flying club or small FBO just had another total loss, and probably an increase in insurance costs. And, the rental fleet is now one airplane fewer to rent. THAT is a bummer, and all caused by stupidity. Fortunately, nobody got hurt.

The local operator here had a nicely equipped older 172 that he rented, and two young hotshots crashed it. That was the end of that rental availability. The airplane wasn't replaced. We all lose in these deals.

MTV

The adherence to these closures is not only to keep from bending metal. Rogersburg is an example of the BLM allowing the strip to be open, under the conditions that the closure during the winter for nesting of eagles be observed. Valid or not (eagle nesting in the area), those are the conditions of the strip being open to the public. There is a story a couple of years ago, where some State official visited the strip, during the closed period, with a BLM rep, and there were fresh tracks in the snow. Not good advertising for our concerns. Participants in the visit might be wrong, but the gist of the story is correct.

Jack

"So, I was just emphasizing that checking the NOTAMs wouldn't have saved him".

Learning by others mistakes and common since might have save this situation. There's a lot to be learned by reading these threads if it constructive critiquing.

I'd just as soon they didn't close the runway when there's snow on it. If someone landed with skis, I'm assuming they could still be cited for landing on a "closed runway"

No--landing on a closed runway is GENERALLY not a big deal, and is simply done at the pilot's own risk.

At FAI, the float pond would freeze over, but it always took the airport maintenance folks a while to get the strip on it marked with cones. In the meantime, or after they pulled the markers in the spring, the Tower would permit us to operate on that NOTAM closed surface, "at pilot's own risk".

Obviously, we ALWAYS operate at our own risk, but in those cases, the tower controller cannot legally clear you to land or takeoff, since the "airport" is closed. But, they can tell you "Operations on the FAI float pond are at pilot's own risk, notify me after takeoff".

MTV

Now your hitting closer to home, at my airport we have a grass strip. They closed it half way into the summer and kept it closed. Even when open we had to say at our own risk to land or take off. The grass strip is in between two runways. What are you saying here. Thay can't keep me off it.

mtv wrote:No--landing on a closed runway is GENERALLY not a big deal, and is simply done at the pilot's own risk.
MTV

MTV, you didn't explicitly say it, but I know you're saying that it's generally not a big deal TO THE FAA. Which is a reasonable assumption to make, because they don't own the runways.

However, it may be quite a big deal to those who own or have legal control over any given runway. If you managed to get someone's hackles up enough, the most common citation would likely be for trespassing, and in some situations, there might be a law allowing your plane to be impounded. So, MTV's other statement still holds, it's at the pilot's own risk!

Which brings us to risk analysis and mitigation, and risk-reward ratios. A careful reading of FAR 45.29 is in order. Or, in layman's terms, two inch high registration numbers on on the tail of an old plane can greatly increase your fun factor!

Why would they NOTAM information that is already in the AFD?

Hmmmmmmmm,landed in some fresh snow and flipped over,bummer there were passenger on board to enjoy it.

Hey, this is an aviation forum. There are, as we've learned in the last week, literally hundreds of ways we can piss off the establishment. I assumed the discussion was surrounding FAA enforcement, but you make a good point, which is there are others out there who will happily punish you, even if the FAA doesn't.

In the noted case, small tail numbers wouldn't have helped much, I'm guessing...

But, ALL flying is at the pilot in command's own risk. That is the bottom line. Same goes for a lot of other endeavors, in case you're feeling discriminated against...

MTV

mtv wrote: No--landing on a closed runway is GENERALLY not a big deal, and is simply done at the pilot's own risk. ...........

I wouldn't make such a blanket statement. Try landing on the closed x'd-out runway 11/29 during the Arlington fly-in, and then tell me it's not a big deal after the FAA decieds to suspend ytour license. Or try landing on a closed x'd-out grass runway during the wet season, & then tell me it's no big deal after the owner rips you a new one for tearing it up.
Maybe it's OK in some situations to use a closed runway, but I'd have to say that they're probably closed for a reason. so I would't be too quick to suggest landing on them anyway.

Eric

Alrighty, maybe I should have worded that better. I didn't mean to come off wrong! But as pilots we should be checking everything, especially on a strip like that! So I guess I should say make sure to check the AFD as well! I agree, we dont always check things when in the local area but when going places that we don't always go, or that have seasonal changes such as this one....we should be checking throughly!
I just hate to see people bend metal at places they shouldn't be in the first place, or as I said tear up fields that not only they, but other pilots use and later have to fix. Of course this guy didn't really tear it up like the guy in Teiton. Glad everyone is okay that for sure.

Eric,

From Dictionary.com:

gen⋅er⋅al⋅ly  /ˈdʒɛnərəli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jen-er-uh-lee] Show IPA
Use generally in a Sentence
See images of generally
Search generally on the Web
–adverb 1. usually; commonly; ordinarily: He generally comes home at noon.
2. with respect to the larger part; for the most part: a generally accurate interpretation of the facts.
3. without reference to or disregarding particular persons, things, situations, etc., that may be an exception: generally speaking.

There are certainly exceptions to what I suggested. But, as I noted, I also was referring to FAA enforcement. You are absolutely correct that in SOME circumstances, the FAA will enforce a runway closure. As to private owners, they cannot have you VIOLATED by the FAA. They can sue you civilly, they MAY be able to have you charged with tresspass by the county mounties, but they cannot get the FAA to violate you for tracking up their private runway.

I didn't mean that there is NEVER a case where FAA enforcement would come into play, hence the term I used: Generally. Perhaps that term is a LITTLE strong for this case, but in any event, the one that's pictured here, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the FAA isn't going to cite him for landing on a closed runway.

But, who knows?? Strange things happen in the world of FAA enforcement.

MTV

I know a guy who X's out the grass strip at his farm, usually for a damn good reason- the ground is way soft, or he's got animals kids vehicles or other obstructions on it. I'd guess that most runway closures are made for similar reasons, not just abitrarily. I'm somewhat of a rebel, I guess, and like a lot of us I don't like to be told what to do. But for this reason I think I'd say that "generally" you shouldn't land on a closed runway, with some exceptions. Sounds like you're saying the opposite. IMHO that's the kind of thinking that leads to incidents like the one we're discussing.

Eric