Runway closing permanently at Allegheny County (KAGC)

"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