Mid-runway departure?

[Doggtyred]

Intentional unusual attitudes in IMC???

No. Cfii/owner was trying to punch a line of weather using center radar. We did a xc in a multi to go look at a new plane for the operation. Looking back me and the other guy were essentially subsidizing his trip.

We flew up 300 miles. Saw plane. Launched for return without re-brief of weather. Other dude had the return leg. I was unhappy how it was playing out. I was ****ED OFF how it ended up. We were in a 60 degree bank and 2000 fpm descent as a result of an upset trying to punch a line if storms. With dip**** fighting the controls and the CFI owner. We recovered. Turned around. Made an end around the line and continued home.

NEVER flew with them again. EVER. Made sure I told everyone why too.

 

[Doggtyred]

Unusual attitudes in actual is unnecessary

CONCUR. In my instance I was a passenger and it wasn't quite intentional. It was certainly negligent.

 

[silver-eagle]

...SNIP...

As for risk - I know my own risk profile and I know what the risks are. With pax, I don't know what their risk profile is, and they don't know what the risks really are. I don't think it's my place to put them in a riskier situation that they can't evaluate and accept for themselves.
...SNIP...

You already know their risk profile, they're flying in those dangerous little planes!

The risk one will expose themselves to is based on experience. If you had an engine out on takeoff, you'll evaluate the results and MAYBE modify your behavior. You bend the metal on a 2500' runway, you limit yourself to longer runways. We're always evaluating our risk. Sure, we don't say "Cheated death again!" but we look at those key actions and their results.

I've left from intersections before and will probably do so again. I've also been known to drive 100MPH on the interstate. It doesn't mean I do it all the time, nor does it mean I don't evaluate the risk/reward. I've left from 2000 foot runways too and driven 53 on the interstate. Life is full of evaluations, risks, and rewards.

Know your limitations. Know the risks. Adjust accordingly. Don't make blanket statements. Some day, you may be challenging them.

 

[Henning]

Oh. now we're getting into how much safety can I afford! I'm not going there. Ask the kids at FIT who departed 3000 ft with three and full fuel and did the Vmc rollover....oh, sorry, you can't ask them. They are dead, and their parents are suing.

What I'm afraid of, and what every pilot should be afraid of, is not their passengers. It's their passengers' estates.

Fear nothing because there is nothing to fear, life will be what it will be and death is assured. If I have as much runway available at an intersection as I will comfortably fly off of regularly, lets use 3000' as an example for a 172, what is the difference between using an intersection departure with 3000' remaining of an 11,000' runway and using the full length 3000' at another airport?

The kids in your example didn't die because they operated off a 3000' runway, they got off the ground and were flying. They died because they couldn't manage the aircraft properly, or quite possibly considering the condition I see of FITs aircraft, a worn out poorly maintained aircraft.

 

[bbchien]

Fear nothing because there is nothing to fear, life will be what it will be and death is assured. If I have as much runway available at an intersection as I will comfortably fly off of regularly, lets use 3000' as an example for a 172, what is the difference between using an intersection departure with 3000' remaining of an 11,000' runway and using the full length 3000' at another airport?

The kids in your example didn't die because they operated off a 3000' runway, they got off the ground and were flying. They died because they couldn't manage the aircraft properly.

There's no fear factor here henning . Just management of risk when management is available. It seems pretty stupid to not ameliorate risk when reasonably easy.....

The FIT kids were not aware of how bad (judgement-wise) they were. Hobbs Rules!! You can't fix stupid.

Kent, I'm disappointed. You know I didn't put the extreme. You KNOW that, go reread if you don't. I do understand how expensive Seneca time is at Wisconsin Aviation- so in a single, all you need is adequate runway. But in a twin, it's "no so simple", the lesson of the FIT crash.

 

[Henning]

There's no fear factor here henning . Just management of risk when management is available. It seems pretty stupid to not ameliorate risk when reasonably easy.....

The FIT kids were not aware of how bad (judgement-wise) they were. Hobbs Rules!! You can't fix stupid.

You know me, I calculate my risks pretty finely, and there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes down to it. Once you have "enough" runway, that is to say where you can safely take off and get some altitude over any obstacles and terrain, you buy ever diminishing amounts of safety with more runway. The question to ask is not "How much safety can I afford?" but rather "Where does my dollar buy the best safety result?" To me it seems pretty stupid to spend a couple hundred bucks that I could use on some non essential maintenance or to get some advanced/recurrent training, sitting in a half hour or longer lineup when I could have taken off from an intersection that left me with an amount of runway that I am comfortable with using.

We all have budgets of some level or another, it's in our best interest to maximize their effectiveness. Sitting in a Conga line of jets waiting to use the end of an 11,000 runway in a Katmai 182 is not what I would consider an effective use of money.

 

[bbchien]

You know me, I calculate my risks pretty finely, and there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes down to it. Once you have "enough" runway, that is to say where you can safely take off and get some altitude over any obstacles and terrain, you buy ever diminishing amounts of safety with more runway. The question to ask is not "How much safety can I afford?" but rather "Where does my dollar buy the best safety result?" To me it seems pretty stupid to spend a couple hundred bucks that I could use on some non essential maintenance or to get some advanced/recurrent training, sitting in a half hour or longer lineup when I could have taken off from an intersection that left me with an amount of runway that I am comfortable with using.

We all have budgets of some level or another, it's in our best interest to maximize their effectiveness. Sitting in a Conga line of jets waiting to use the end of an 11,000 runway in a Katmai 182 is not what I would consider an effective use of money.

A katmai 182 is hardly a twin.

You know, the FAA will look at your judgement in the 310 if you decline full length and subsequently land out. How do I know? I've provided remediation training for same. Choose carefully (which includes not using TEB (where you can shave 5x, and read a novel while waiting) in your 310!!!)

Henning, YOU know that I know that you know the risks.....and that's fine. But I AM afraid of my passenger's estates, can you say "CHICKEN MAN......(WABC 1972)".

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Kent, I'm disappointed. You know I didn't put the extreme. You KNOW that, go reread if you don't. I do understand how expensive Seneca time is at Wisconsin Aviation- so in a single, all you need is adequate runway. But in a twin, it's "no so simple", the lesson of the FIT crash.

Bruce,

I was simply responding to what you wrote and what you quoted:

Or an extra 30mins+ when you're billed by Hobbes hour? I'm not advocating that cost saving trump safety, but why spend an extra $100 holding behind a number of planes, when you can possibly take an intersection departure and be outta there? If I'm still left with 6000'+ of runway in a single, is it really worth the wait for the rest of the runway?

Oh. now we're getting into how much safety can I afford! I'm not going there. Ask the kids at FIT who departed 3000 ft with three and full fuel and did the Vmc rollover....oh, sorry, you can't ask them. They are dead, and their parents are suing.

What I'm afraid of, and what every pilot should be afraid of, is not their passengers. It's their passengers' estates.

That poster specifically said, and you quoted, the situation of 6000+ feet of runway in a single. Using more is not a "how much safety can I afford" situation, IMO. I agree with what you're saying about operating the Seneca, and I agree that there are those who sometimes make things significantly more risky in order to save a buck - But the situation you quoted isn't one of 'em. That's all I was pointing out. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

You know I'd take the extra runway in a Seneca in case of a failure, especially if I wasn't sure exactly how that whole upper deck controller gizmo worked and didn't want to just shove the throttles in.

 

[Henning]

A katmai 182 is hardly a twin.

You know, the FAA will look at your judgement in the 310 if you decline full length and subsequently land out. How do I know? I've provided remediation training for same. Choose carefully (which includes not using TEB (where you can shave 5x, and read a novel while waiting) in your 310!!!)

Henning, YOU know that I know that you know the risks.....and that's fine. But I AM afraid of my passenger's estates, can you say "CHICKEN MAN......(WABC 1972)".

The OP wasn't talking about a twin either, a twin has an extra set of issues, howver if I depart in my 310 with 7500' of runway in front of me and 2000 behind me, I'm golden with the FAA because I can show them I had accelerate stop + 2500'. Using the extra runway to try to set it back down after I have already launched and exceeded the same point had I used full length would add extra risk over trying to fly out. There comes a point where the best thing to do is honk on and don't f- up.

 

[Ted]

Not getting it stopped in 4000, or getting it accelerated from rotation speed (where it doesn't want to stay on the ground) to Vyse when only one is turning.....Yup. It depends on what V1 is for that day in that configuration with that wind and temp.

The Colemill 310 with 3-bladed props is a different beast than a standard 310 with 2-bladed props. Henning and I can go do a comparison in takeoff performance some day. You're off the ground and above obstacles very, very quickly, even loaded.

Enjoy the ATP. It's all about closing the windows of vulnerability, which is not TOTALLY possible to do in piston twins, but you can use judgement and make it pretty small.

Correct. And I don't know anyone who flies passengers who thinks otherwise.

You make the window as small as you can realistically make it. Since we (presumably) all chose to get out of bed in the morning, the size is greater than zero.

I take the whole runway. It's a matter of discipline.

Preference. And one that I don't disagree with in theory. As with all things in aviation, "it depends."

You don't really have a V1, do you? In terms of calculated accelerate-stop distances published so that you can calculate a minimum field length?

That is correct, but the meaning of the term is still relevant.

I saw Bruce's logic, which makes sense in terms of his decision speed and VySE for part 23 airplane. And I fully agree with his preference. I don't think I'd ever make the "I'm going to try this takeoff even though I don't have enough runway length to accelerate to a safe climb speed (VySE) and still stop safely if I lose an engine before that speed" choice IF I had it. Sad fact in some light twins and "regular" runways is that's the box you're in. The odds aren't horrible, but they're not zero either.

I don't think anyone disagreed on that point. However you make the caveat "if you had the choice." So what do you define as having the choice? You always have the option to not fly, at least until your wheels are off the ground. As Mari pointed out, they'll take intersection departures.

Take a look at the accelerate-stop on a Beech 1900 and Dash 8s, and then take a look at CYKQ (Waskaganish, QC). It's a 3511 ft gravel strip. In the winter, the numbers show they're doing pretty well since the strip is pretty close to sea level and the temps are typically well below freezing. However in the summer, you still can get surprisingly high temps for being that far north...

 

[Ted]

Well I am a "IFR" pilot and I prefer it high in my turbo w/ o2. Having said that you throw up a random number 15k which is beyond the limits of some planes. It is different for diff. planes and situations of course. I guess I should have explained if there is a 100kt headwind at 10k ft and you have a cub it would probably be better a little lower.

That's my point. But it's more than just headwinds and flying at the highest altitude that the plane is capable of (as you're aware, but now I'm going to elaborate).

For example, the Aztec has horrendous cooling over the engines. In the summer at above 7,000 ft, it's difficult to keep the cylinder head temps reasonable without dumping ludicrous amounts of fuel in, even with the cowl flaps. So my options are fly higher (which the plane will do) and risk shorter engine life (not to mention the fact that the plane just won't fly happily up there) or be much more comfortable at a lower altitude (we'll ignore the option of dumping ludicrous amounts of fuel in, which is not ideal for a number of reasons). I'll take the lower altitude. The plane and I will both be happier. Then there's icing, for which there are lots of reasons to fly at various altitudes, high or low depending.

Similarly, I can take a 35K departure from PHL on a busy Friday afternoon in the summer or say I need full length. Then they'll probably taxi me to 27L, which means crossing 35 (probably at K), then crossing 27R, then getting to 27L, and waiting my turn. Meanwhile, my oil and cylinders hitting ludicrous temperatures, and my passengers and I are baking in the greenhouse of a cabin. Let's say I'm doing an Angel Flight, and one of those passengers therefore may have certain health implications due to sitting in a greenhouse of a cabin that I might be able to safely tolerate. Nevermind the fact that, as my cylinders are baking and my oil is boiling, the engine may idle just fine, but who knows what will happen when I push the power forward? Now I run a higher risk of a fowled plug and other potential pitfalls. When faced with that option, I chose 35K, just like the DHC-8s ahead of me filled with passengers.

Let's say I'm flying a Cheyenne, and now I have air conditioning and pressurization (not to mention turbines). Ok, I'm less worried about my temps now, and my passengers and I are comfortable (well, depending on just how hot it is...). However I'm burning 200 lbs/hr combined idling on the ground. For reference, my fuel burn at my cruising altitude of FL200 will be 400 lbs/hr, with roughly 2800 lbs of Jet A total at my disposal. That extra 30 minutes on the ground equates to losing 15 minutes of fuel at cruising altitude. So even if my passenger and I are comfortable, that still doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea. I may want that 15 minutes of fuel, even though I don't push my margins close. Turbine fuel burn characteristics can make planning interesting, especially when you get unexpected curveballs.

While I don't think anyone doesn't prefer long runways, flying high, and with full fuel, there are times when the runway behind you, altitude above you, and fuel in the truck make sense to be in those places, and can contribute to a safer outcome of a flight.

 

[TMetzinger]

So what do you define as having the choice? You always have the option to not fly, at least until your wheels are off the ground.

Having made the decision to go fly, I wouldn't take the intersection departure if it didn't meet the equivalent of the balanced-field length, and the full length did meet the equivalent of the balanced-field length.

If the field is too short for a balanced-field-like operation, then my choice is "do I want to go fly now, or can I wait for better conditions (maybe at night when it's cooler)? If I'm gonna fly from this short field, do I HAVE to take others with me? Can I meet them at a longer field a short distance away?

So there are a bunch of things to consider. I think we're all in agreement though it may not have seemed so.

 

[Ted]

So there are a bunch of things to consider. I think we're all in agreement though it may not have seemed so.

I think so, just that our specific ways of saying things are probably tainted by our experiences and varied backgrounds.

 

[EdFred]

Flying has gotten boring so I use the minimum distance every time to get my heart pounding.

 

[Ted]

Flying has gotten boring so I use the minimum distance every time to get my heart pounding.

 

[TMetzinger]

Flying has gotten boring so I use the minimum distance every time to get my heart pounding.

I just close my eyes and listen for the correct windspeed sound, then I pull back. No ASI, no nothing. And the grass around the runway gets mowed too!

 

[Everskyward]

I think so, just that our specific ways of saying things are probably tainted by our experiences and varied backgrounds.

Probably. Since I flew light twins mostly only at high DA I thought of them as glorified singles, at least when taking off. Once the gear was up you possibly had more options, but not before, and even that was not guaranteed. The charts, and there were not many, in the C-320's POH were incredibly over-optimistic compared to the actual performance so I never depended on them.

On the other hand, in transport category jets you are not even allowed to attempt the takeoff (even Part 91) unless you can meet the takeoff numbers, which basically are the longest of accelerate-stop or accelerate-go. I will use runways that are close to the minimum required although not in the instance that we have the option of the full length. Usually it's because that's the closest airport to where the passengers want to go. That's an "expedience" reason but it's also the reason people use these kinds of airplanes. I will use intersections to avoid a delay for traffic using the end but usually will not ask for one just to avoid the taxi unless it involves taxiing for miles. As with everything, "it depends".

 

[Ted]

Probably. Since I flew light twins mostly only at high DA I thought of them as glorified singles, at least when taking off. Once the gear was up you possibly had more options, but not before, and even that was not guaranteed. The charts, and there were not many, in the C-320's POH were incredibly over-optimistic compared to the actual performance so I never depended on them.

Exactly. Similarly, I rely more on personal experience with my aircraft and a knowledge of what they'll do than on the charts, as they are both limited and optimistic. I know how much runway I need to get off the ground comfortably in varying conditions. And as you said, there can be times when you basically have a single with its power divided into two propellers for a short period of time.

Usually it's because that's the closest airport to where the passengers want to go. That's an "expedience" reason but it's also the reason people use these kinds of airplanes.

While it's less of an issue in this country, I've still had issues where I turn down airports for whatever reason (either runway length or instrument approaches typically) and the next one is still an hour's drive away. That is a significant inconvenience for the people involved. Even looking around Denver, it would've been a much longer drive to APA when we met you for dinner last summer than the quick flight from BJC.

When you get to remote regions of Canada, your alternate may be an hour or more by plane, and 6+ hours by car. If the plane can't get into that airport, then the trip is typically just called off.

As with everything, "it depends".

The point I've been trying to make...

 

[bbchien]

You guys know I'm not talking about declining airports with sufficient runway for All enines operating. I'm just talking about NOT declining the whole runway when that would make the difference between "exposure window closed" or "exposure window open".

See you at 3MO!

 

[Everskyward]

While it's less of an issue in this country, I've still had issues where I turn down airports for whatever reason (either runway length or instrument approaches typically) and the next one is still an hour's drive away. That is a significant inconvenience for the people involved. Even looking around Denver, it would've been a much longer drive to APA when we met you for dinner last summer than the quick flight from BJC.

We turn down flights to certain airports too, especially when rain or snow make the runway length needed much longer, and as you say, as long as there is an instrument approach, if necessary. However we usually try to accommodate the request as long as it's legal and safe. I've also learned to check the runway and ramp weight bearing capacity too. It's usually published for the runway and taxiways, not necessarily for the ramp...

 

[EdFred]

You guys know I'm not talking about declining airports with sufficient runway for All enines operating. I'm just talking about NOT declining the whole runway when that would make the difference between "exposure window closed" or "exposure window open".

See you at 3MO!

You might see Apache Bob there!

 

[Skylane81E]

I might, if nobody's arround I'd probably go to the end but if the place is busy I'd take the intersection departure as much to get out of the controler's hair as anything else.

 

[Baron2PG]

Jumping in very late in this debate and didn't read every response so cut me slack if someone already said this:

There is a point of diminshing returns. If the runway is long enough to spur this debate it typically implies a big, busy, and/or towered airport. Tower will turn you out to your departure heading once you reach say 200 or 300 feet so all that remaining runway won't be in front of you anyway.

Common sense says grab enough runway for what you consider to be "normal" and "safe". If you fly out of a 3500 foot field most of the time then grab 5000' of runway. If it is hot as heck or your at gross then grab another 1000' if you can.

To go to the end of a 10,000' runway in a light C-172 is silly. You'll be a turned out on course with a mile of runway still in front of you.

 

[jesse]

I'll generally do it if they ask me to and the length is reasonable. Otherwise I usually just taxi. If I were facing a long taxi behind a bunch of delayed jets I would definitely take the intersection departure.

Every situation is dynamic and I'm constantly weighing the risk versus benefit. Some negligible increase in risk may be worth it for a decent chunk of benefit.

 

[Skylane81E]

Exactly,
Short answer, "depends"