Runway closing permanently at Allegheny County (KAGC)

In article , John R wrote:

With the closing, the authority plans to use a 3,825-foot runway
with a northwest-t o-southeast orientation for crosswind
landings. The third runway, the airport's longest at 6,501 feet,
has an east-west orientation.

Regardless, in an emergency, you can still use it as a runway.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:37:53 GMT, EDR wrote:

In article , John R wrote:

With the closing, the authority plans to use a 3,825-foot runway
with a northwest-t o-southeast orientation for crosswind
landings. The third runway, the airport's longest at 6,501 feet,
has an east-west orientation.

Regardless, in an emergency, you can still use it as a runway.

That's what I always thought (and still do, as safety is more
important than money) but can anyone comment on this? I was told at a
NACO safety seminar that if you land on a closed runway insurance
companies will not pay, even if was an emergency. This official
(remember NACO, not FAA) said that you should land adjacent to the
runway but not on it, if you think you can survive the landing. Has
anyone ever heard of such a thing? I think I'd be inclined to land on
the closed runway, provided it wasn't butchered like Meigs.
Rich Russell

In article , Richard
Russell wrote:

Regardless, in an emergency, you can still use it as a runway.

That's what I always thought (and still do, as safety is more
important than money) but can anyone comment on this? I was told at a
NACO safety seminar that if you land on a closed runway insurance
companies will not pay, even if was an emergency. This official
(remember NACO, not FAA) said that you should land adjacent to the
runway but not on it, if you think you can survive the landing. Has
anyone ever heard of such a thing? I think I'd be inclined to land on
the closed runway, provided it wasn't butchered like Meigs.

I have read somewhere, that there is less damage to the aircraft
landing on the hard surface than on the turf during a gear up
emergency.

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
...
[...]
That's what I always thought (and still do, as safety is more
important than money) but can anyone comment on this? I was told at a
NACO safety seminar that if you land on a closed runway insurance
companies will not pay, even if was an emergency.

NACO (whoever they are) doesn't set the rules for each policy. The
underwriter for the policy does. And unless the policy explicitly says you
cannot land on a closed runway, even in an emergency, the insurance company
would have a hard time justifying withholding payment on the policy. I know
my policy contains no such language.

It is up to the pilot to decide where the most suitable emergency landing
site is, and it is up to the insurance company to pay for damages to the
airplane that are a result of an accident. Most accidents are the result of
poor judgment on the pilot's part anyway, so even if a closed runway turned
out to not be the most suitable landing site (and that's not a foregone
conclusion anyway), the insurance policy should pay, barring some specific
language to the contrary.

Pete

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:55:30 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
That's what I always thought (and still do, as safety is more
important than money) but can anyone comment on this? I was told at a
NACO safety seminar that if you land on a closed runway insurance
companies will not pay, even if was an emergency.

NACO (whoever they are) doesn't set the rules for each policy. The
underwriter for the policy does. And unless the policy explicitly says you
cannot land on a closed runway, even in an emergency, the insurance company
would have a hard time justifying withholding payment on the policy. I know
my policy contains no such language.

It is up to the pilot to decide where the most suitable emergency landing
site is, and it is up to the insurance company to pay for damages to the
airplane that are a result of an accident. Most accidents are the result of
poor judgment on the pilot's part anyway, so even if a closed runway turned
out to not be the most suitable landing site (and that's not a foregone
conclusion anyway), the insurance policy should pay, barring some specific
language to the contrary.

Pete


NACO is the National Aeronautical Charting Office. I understand what
you are saying about the details of idividual policies. This fellow
(I wish I could remember his name, but he was very highly placed)
claimed that it was an issue of landing where landings are expressly
prohibited as opposed to landing on a suitable site where you are not
expressly prohibited from landing. He implied that this
interpretation was industry standard. As noted in my original post, I
would land on the closed runway, conditions permitting.

Rich Russell

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
...
NACO is the National Aeronautical Charting Office.

Ahh...I see. I knew that was one interpretation of NACO, but couldn't see
how they were involved in this issue.

[...] This fellow
(I wish I could remember his name, but he was very highly placed)
claimed that it was an issue of landing where landings are expressly
prohibited as opposed to landing on a suitable site where you are not
expressly prohibited from landing.

That logic doesn't make any sense. For example, landings would normally be
prohibited in a schoolyard, for example. But in an emergency, if that's the
only suitable site or is the most suitable site, there's absolutely no
problem with landing there, not from the point of view of the FARs nor from
the point of view of any insurance company.

There are lots of places you're not normally permitted to land. Most
emergency landings are made on such places, and the choice of the landing
site should never be a hinderance to insurance paying out.

He implied that this interpretation was industry standard.

Well, if that implication was intentional on his part, he simply doesn't
know what he's talking about. Which is not surprising. His job has nothing
to do with insurance.

As noted in my original post, I
would land on the closed runway, conditions permitting.

As should any pilot. Without having any worry at all about whether their
insurance will pay.

Pete