Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
General None Reported / Taken
Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
During cruise flight; returning passengers to home airport; it was discovered (ATC prompted and the crew missed the NOTAM) that the destination airport would be closed [7 minutes after] calculated time of arrival. Approach control notified us a second time as to the proximity of the time the runway was to shut down. After a minor weather diversion; approach control cleared us for the visual approach to Runway XX after we declared the field in sight. Upon handoff to Tower; we had the runway lights in sight and the time on the FMS was now [2 minutes until active NOTAM]. The Tower again told us about the NOTAM and seemed perturbed that we would show up to the airport so close to the closure time. I replied that we showed 15 seconds to spare as we crossed the threshold and continued. The Tower stated that he: 1) could not give a clearance to land on a NOTAM closed runway and that 2) he had not allowed any construction vehicles onto the runway yet; and 3) the runway lights were on; so the decision was made to continue the landing. I noted the landing time as [5 seconds until active NOTAM]. After landing; we were cleared to taxi to the ramp. Upon reaching the ramp; the Tower allowed construction vehicles on to the runway via radio communications (I could hear the construction vehicles on the frequency and they could hear us) and the runway lights were then turned off. Upon debriefing with the other crew member; we were unsure if anything could have been done differently as there was some ambiguous communication with the Tower regarding the status of the runway either open or closed. Upon further reflection; I do not remember a specific clearance to land given. We were allowed by controllers to continue to the destination airport when the arrival time seemed that it may conflict with a runway closure. That certainly was not their fault; but it did apply pressure to get the airplane to the destination in an expedited manner. The Tower controller seemed unhappy that we arrived so close to the closure time; yet he left the runway lights on and construction traffic clear until after our arrival. Between the pressure to expedite the landing and non-standard communications; a clearance to land was not received; nor was a direct denial of use of the runway received when we were on the approach.
CE-680 Captain reported landing five seconds prior to the closing of the runway; possibly without a clearance.