Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 30; Flight Crew Total 800; Flight Crew Type 210
Communication Breakdown
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Aircraft; Procedure; Airport; Human Factors
I was on a personal flight in the vicinity of 10D (Winsted MN). I was experiencing light engine roughness. I noticed another aircraft in the pattern at 10D and contacted him on CTAF. I asked him the condition of the runway after recognizing that there was no indication that the runway was closed. He said it was fine and that he was using it for touch and go's. After determining that a safe landing could be made; I chose to land to troubleshoot my problem. When I reached the apron; I was approached by a male in a vehicle; who stated that the runway was closed and that he didn't need to mark the runway as closed with a yellow X. [Since] I didn't plan on landing at 10D; I did not check the NOTAM's. While I was at Winsted airport; there were four other aircraft using the runway. After doing a thorough inspection and run-up; I determined that the engine was running fine. If 10D runway was clearly marked as a closed runway; I would not have landed.
General Aviation pilot reports landing at Winsted Airport after noting some engine roughness. Upon reaching the apron he is approached by a vehicle and the driver informs that the airport is closed. Aircraft were in the pattern both before and after the incident with no mention of the airport being closed on the CTAF. NOTAM's for Winsted were not checked prior to flight due to no intention to land there.