Mid-runway departure?

[bbchien]

....In the 310 with 600 hp, that's easy even with full load on a hot day. [

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.....

The Aztec it depends on loading and the weather. I'd probably want more runway if I had passengers or a heavy load and it was hot.

Yup. It depends on what V1 is for that day in that configuration with that wind and temp.

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.

If you aren't doing that, then the guys who say, "two chances to fail and kill you" are indeed correct.

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

 

[TMetzinger]

You prep for the engine failure in a twin. Whether you're at an 11,000 ft strip or a 3,000 ft strip, your procedure should be no different for being able to handle the engine failure. You'd also be surprised how much runway it actually takes to stop a twin at V1. Sometimes that may be a better option, but if you've gotten to V1 already, you've got a lot of kinetic energy for those little brakes to dissipate. Try it and see how much runway you eat up.

Flying out of Sky Manor (2900 ft with obstacles) in the Aztec or 310, if the gear is up, I'm going, feathering the bad engine and Vxse until over the tree tops. There's no way I'm going to stop before those trees if I'm at V1 already. In fact, there's probably no way I'm going to stop before those trees well below V1.

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?

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 also do the full takeoff briefing in any airplane no matter how many engines, and will instill that habit in my students.

 

[bbchien]

Sad but true fact. Departing my home field I have to be 700 undergross to get it up to Vyse and get it to Zero again. That's myself and 4.5 hours' fuel.

And with the new apartment complexes 50' high just over the four lane...my clearway (phase 1 climb) is limiting.

"Here's the Honda keys, boys. Meet me at Byerly's, I'm hopping over there by myself, we'll load up....over there."

 

[denverpilot]

At home, to get to Runway 35 when the winds are cranking from the north is a 4 mile taxi.

Heh. I've done that taxi at FTG too.

You start wondering if Colorado Springs is going to show up on the horizon while you're still on the ground.

 

[bbchien]

Hey, at FTG in a single, you can landout in almost any direction safely......

 

[denverpilot]

I don't get this "if there's no pax or only rated pilots on board we'll take the riskier option" sentiment mentioned by a number of people.

Are your lives worth less than your passengers? Would your loved ones understand "Oh, he did the intersection departure because it was just him and his flying buddy" and the funeral?

Being a bit overly-dramatic to make the point, I know. But seriously. Why is it different?

Doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not afraid to use the STOL capabilities of our aircraft either, when necessary -- or as practice for when it is -- but I can do that full-length, just as easily as from an intersection.

I'm worried about the attitude that it's "okay if only pilots are on board". That seems illogical.

 

[denverpilot]

Hey, at FTG in a single, you can landout in almost any direction safely......

T'is true. T'is true.

Northbound you might freak out the DIA controllers a bit, though. ;-)

Eastbound, you might end up on my buddy's farm. Haha. He's one of the two or three out there collecting rusty farm equipment and building a steel barn. Haven't been out there for a while, but the barn's probably done.

He used to own a C-172 he called the "Blue Bellied Money Sucker".

Little did I know how true that was...!

 

[Everskyward]

I don't get this "if there's no pax or only rated pilots on board we'll take the riskier option" sentiment mentioned by a number of people.

Are your lives worth less than your passengers? Would your loved ones understand "Oh, he did the intersection departure because it was just him and his flying buddy" and the funeral?

Being a bit overly-dramatic to make the point, I know. But seriously. Why is it different?

Doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not afraid to use the STOL capabilities of our aircraft either, when necessary -- or as practice for when it is -- but I can do that full-length, just as easily as from an intersection.

I'm worried about the attitude that it's "okay if only pilots are on board". That seems illogical.

What I think is interesting is that we frequently hear, "I wouldn't do thus and such with non-pilot passengers." We also hear, "The weather is a little iffy today so I'm staying on the ground because it isn't my job or anything." To me, that's somewhat of a contradiction.

 

[Henning]

I don't get this "if there's no pax or only rated pilots on board we'll take the riskier option" sentiment mentioned by a number of people.

Are your lives worth less than your passengers? Would your loved ones understand "Oh, he did the intersection departure because it was just him and his flying buddy" and the funeral?

Being a bit overly-dramatic to make the point, I know. But seriously. Why is it different?

Doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not afraid to use the STOL capabilities of our aircraft either, when necessary -- or as practice for when it is -- but I can do that full-length, just as easily as from an intersection.

I'm worried about the attitude that it's "okay if only pilots are on board". That seems illogical.

Because if it's just me, if it's my day to die, I die. If I have passengers, I want to give myself a better chance if it's their day to die....

 

[Henning]

What I think is interesting is that we frequently hear, "I wouldn't do thus and such with non-pilot passengers." We also hear, "The weather is a little iffy today so I'm staying on the ground because it isn't my job or anything." To me, that's somewhat of a contradiction.

Yep, I fly in iffy weather all the time, actually, under it, but then I'll take pax on a 150'AGL cross country dodging t-storms as well.

 

[Richard]

So, you wouldn't takeoff with pax at F in Everskyward's example?

Looking at the RWY diagram I would depart from F...if in my estimation my pax were not apprehensive about it.

As for just me or me and pilot rated pax, I might even begin my TO roll up near B7. The diff there is a matter of perception. You and me have diff perception of flying small aircraft than those who think anything smaller than a 150 seater metal tube is dangerous. My life is no less worthy than any other person's. It is simply a matter of perception. "Don't scare the pax" is my operational maxim.

EDIT: my only pax flying job has been 206/207. Just walking up to "such a little airplane" is enough for some pax. Not much I can do about that but when it comes to such a little airplane making an intersection departure, then by my own decision I just raised their anxiety. Trust me, some pax get so spooked they become a threat to flight safety. And they can infect the rest of the group. All I can do is try to alter their perception.

 

[Henning]

It is simply a matter of perception. "Don't scare the pax" is my operational maxim.

I find that passengers don't scare if I'm comfortable, actually, non pilot pax are much more comfortable flying around at 100 AGL than other pilots are. If I'm calm and good with it, people seem to always be pretty comfortable even if they can wave up at the truckers on the highway. What I see that bothers most people is when you pull over a 1.5gs or get in strong turbulence.

 

[Richard]

I find that passengers don't scare if I'm comfortable, actually, non pilot pax are much more comfortable flying around at 100 AGL than other pilots are. If I'm calm and good with it, people seem to always be pretty comfortable even if they can wave up at the truckers on the highway. What I see that bothers most people is when you pull over a 1.5gs or get in strong turbulence.

And all that you just said I certainly agree with.

That is a good point...non-rated pax may not know that it's best to fly in the middle of the air.

I was just thinking how many pax I flew. I estimate 2,000 pax per 7 month season. Only once did I have a real threat to flight safety. That guy I had already taken steps for him to release the yoke (he tried to take control). I was calling ground to have the police meet the plane and was moving to karate chop him in the neck when the other pax screaming at him convinced him to relent. He doesn't know how close he came to unconsciousness. Others relinguished to good ol humor. Make it fun, make it relaxed. And never let them see you sweat.

 

[Henning]

I never have had a passenger try to do something stupid like that.

 

[Doggtyred]

I've had another instrument student pilot freeze up in unusual attitude IMC and begin fighting the cfii. He was a few seconds away from a chokehold from the backseat.

Never flew with either EVER again. Instructor knew better than to be where we were.

 

[TMetzinger]

I don't get this "if there's no pax or only rated pilots on board we'll take the riskier option" sentiment mentioned by a number of people.

Are your lives worth less than your passengers? Would your loved ones understand "Oh, he did the intersection departure because it was just him and his flying buddy" and the funeral?

Being a bit overly-dramatic to make the point, I know. But seriously. Why is it different?

Doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not afraid to use the STOL capabilities of our aircraft either, when necessary -- or as practice for when it is -- but I can do that full-length, just as easily as from an intersection.

I'm worried about the attitude that it's "okay if only pilots are on board". That seems illogical.

If it's just me, I fully understand the risk and the odds. I'm comfortable making that decision for myself. I'm also comfortable sharing that decision with other pilots because they also understand. Not gonna make that decision for others who don't understand.

Also, in the example we've been discussing relative to light twins, the choice isn't between two "if something goes wrong we have an out" selections, it's between one "we have an out" and one "we're probably gonna get hurt" selections. Given that choice, it's obvious.

The ORIGINAL question, however, in a single is a choice between two "we have an out" situations, and the risk/reward balance is different.

Give me a 40,000 foot runway and ask me to use the last 10,000 feet in a light twin - no problem. Give me 10,000 foot runway and ask me to use the last 2500? Different answer. And a still different answer in a single.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Finally, a valid reason for the intersection departure:

"..twr, N123 ready for an immediate, #1, rwy 13 at Golf."

 

[Steve Tatalovich]

The two most useless things to a pilot are the runway behind him and the sky above him. I say spend the extra one minute to taxi and use all available runway. My $.02

Steve

 

[dmccormack]

I've had another instrument student pilot freeze up in unusual attitude IMC and begin fighting the cfii. He was a few seconds away from a chokehold from the backseat.

Intentional unusual attitudes in IMC???

 

[SkyHog]

The two most useless things to a pilot are the runway behind him and the sky above him. I say spend the extra one minute to taxi and use all available runway. My $.02

Steve

What is its an extra 15 minutes?

KABQ, Runway 8/26 is over 14,000ft long.

 

[Mike I]

What is its an extra 15 minutes?

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?

 

[pmanton]

Intersection departure--As soon as I passed the point of no return I lost a cylinder. Had I used the entire runway I would have been able to land easily.

No more----

Paul
N1431A
2AZ1

 

[roncachamp]

The two most useless things to a pilot are the runway behind him and the sky above him. I say spend the extra one minute to taxi and use all available runway. My $.02

What if it takes ten or twenty minutes to taxi and use all available runway? Would you still spend it?

 

[roncachamp]

Intersection departure--As soon as I passed the point of no return I lost a cylinder. Had I used the entire runway I would have been able to land easily.

No more----

It appears you were still able to land.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Intentional unusual attitudes in IMC???

Yup. BTDT. Simulated partial panel, too.

Sure as hell wasn't on my first flight in IMC, and that instructor and I had flown together a LOT. And yes, I still use him, specifically because he DOES give me a really REALLY hard workout instead of a bare-minimum-to-meet-the-standards signoff.

Just yesterday, I got to hear about someone who got an IPC last week and got the same treatment. Sure, it's more dangerous than straight and level, but I'm glad I got that experience - once.

 

[bbchien]

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.

 

[Mike I]

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.

For the sake of argument, if I'm at a field that has a 15,000' runway, are you saying that I should wait for the full length, even if it means an hour hold (hypothetical)? I'll take the 10,000' intersection departure and won't have a second thought about compromising safety, especially if I'm in a light single. Your 3000' example in a twin is stretching things a bit. We're talking about gross excess of runway length, not intersection departures creating artificial short field or max perf takeoffs.

 

[roncachamp]

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.

The question was, "If I'm still left with 6000'+ of runway in a single, is it really worth the wait for the rest of the runway?" So what we're actually getting into is how much do you want to spend in order to use the full runway length when an intersection departure doesn't compromise safety.

 

[dmccormack]

Yup. BTDT. Simulated partial panel, too.

Unusual attitudes in actual is unnecessary as you are compounding an artificial risk, so I won't ask for it or require it. There's plenty of VMC days to do that sort of thing with vision artificially limited.

That said, to each his own, but I'll pass on a CFII who requires it.

 

[Everskyward]

That is a good point...non-rated pax may not know that it's best to fly in the middle of the air.

I've found that non-pilot passengers sometimes have odd conceptions. They are usually much more nervous about turbulence than, say, an approach to minimums in the snow. I also agree with Henning in that they pick up on your attitude towards things. If you act nervous they're going to be nervous.

 

[denverpilot]

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?

Is your life worth more than $100? Or to be less dramatic, are you adding more risk than $100 can fix?

$100 is nothing in aviation these days.

"Worth" is a funny thing with humans. We've all been there.

 

[denverpilot]

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

Or their own life insurance company refusing to pay their spouse.

 

[Mike I]

Is your life worth more than $100? Or to be less dramatic, are you adding more risk than $100 can fix?

$100 is nothing in aviation these days.

Then where do you draw the line? So there's another few thousand feet of runway available... you feel obligated to use it? Say there's an airport 5 miles away with a runway twice as long but with a $100 landing fee...by that token, you should spend the $100 and only fly in to the larger field, right? Why take the risk of using a short 7,500' runway when there's one twice as long nearby...would you be willing to put your life at risk?

It's all about measured risk, and we have to draw the line somewhere (in my opinion).

 

[Fearless Tower]

Then where do you draw the line? So there's another few thousand feet of runway available... you feel obligated to use it? Say there's an airport 5 miles away with a runway twice as long but with a $100 landing fee...by that token, you should spend the $100 and only fly in to the larger field, right? Why take the risk of using a short 7,500' runway when there's one twice as long nearby...would you be willing to put your life at risk?

It's all about measured risk, and we have to draw the line somewhere (in my opinion).

Bingo...that's the problem with all the blanket statements flying around on this thread.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't get this "if there's no pax or only rated pilots on board we'll take the riskier option" sentiment mentioned by a number of people.

Do you do stalls with pax aboard? Go flying on a very turbulent day? I don't. I know that stalls aren't dangerous when done in the right place, and I know the plane's going to stay in one piece in turbulence. Pax don't, it makes them extremely nervous, they don't have fun, and then they go tell all their friends how awful all those little planes are. Not good for GA.

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.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You must be the pilot your passengers expect you to be. Whether you just got your Private (or Sport) pilot certificate yesterday or whether you're a 30,000-hour ATP, they expect you to put them back on the ground safely, and it's your duty to give yourself the best chance of doing exactly that.

Now, with other pilots aboard, they know their risk profile and can evaluate the risks as well. If they told me "I'm not comfortable doing x" then I won't do it. The difference is that THEY are also able to make the decision as to whether to be in that situation and can evaluate whether it fits their risk profile. Pax simply don't have the knowledge to be able to do that.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Oh. now we're getting into how much safety can I afford! I'm not going there.

Is your life worth more than $100? Or to be less dramatic, are you adding more risk than $100 can fix?

Bruce, Nate... To a point I agree, but those statements can be taken to an extreme, and when taken to an extreme, they just don't work.

For example - Let's say I have unlimited money.

First, let's start with me. If I had a BFR two years ago and an IPC six months ago, that's not as safe as if I had a more recent BFR/IPC. So, let's say I get a BFR/IPC every three months - That's safer, right? Okay, but if I get a BFR/IPC *every* month, that's safer yet! Taken to the extreme, I get a BFR/IPC every day... But at that point, not only am I probably adding more complacency than proficiency, I'm increasing my exposure to potential emergencies by flying so much! So, clearly there is a point of diminishing returns. Flying regularly, keeping one's own skills proficient, and getting a workout with a CFI every 3-6 months puts one in a very good position for safety.

Now, let's talk about the airplane. Nate flies a 35-year-old normally aspirated single from a high-altitude, urban airport near the mountains. A turbocharged twin like Bruce's Seneca would be "safer" (assuming the pilot is proficient enough)... But the nice new turbojet that Mari flies out of the same airport would be safer yet, right? So, Nate, why are you flying a single? Bruce, why are you flying a piston? The jet would be safer, so now we're deciding "How much safety can I afford?"

So, if I had unlimited money, I could buy a 747-400, have it outfitted just like Air Force One, hire the crew from Air Force One, and I'd have the safest plane in the sky, right? And I would love to do that, and it's clearly safer than what I do now by far, so I'm deciding "how much safety can I afford."

In all of these arguments over whether something is "safer", we ignore the fact that there lies a line where further "safety" reaches a point of diminishing returns and, taken to the extreme, would and should cause us to stop flying altogether.

From an engineer's perspective, I argue that there is a line where an operation is "safe enough" and that is what we all aim for - And each person's definition of that line is going to be somewhat different, too. In fact, each person's definition of "safe enough" changes based on their own experiences.

Using the last 1,000 feet of a 12,000 foot runway? Probably lies in the realm of "foolish" for most pilots and planes. Using the last 3,000 feet in a light single when there's nothing but a sod farm off the end of the runway? Probably okay for most folks. Using the same last 3,000 feet in a heavily loaded Seneca with trees/houses off the end of the runway? Probably a bad idea. Using 6,000 feet in that same Seneca, with the "sod farm" example? Maybe OK. Using 9,000 feet in that situation? Seriously, if someone can't do that safely, they need to go get a workout with their CFI.

For all but the most heavily loaded, large airplanes, that last 3,000 feet (ie, using the entire 12,000 feet instead of "just" 9,000) probably does not add any significant level of safety. Put another way, the change in safety between using 9,000 and 12,000 for any piston driver is insignificant.

Back to the OP, we're talking about a 172 and 4,000 feet of paved concrete, with two other runways. I'd say it's a judgement call. 180hp 172, solo, 3 seasons a year (JVL is in Wisconsin, after all) that 172 should be able to get back down on a runway with an engine failure at any point, assuming a reasonably proficient pilot. Now, an old 145hp 172 on a hot day, heavily loaded, maybe the extra runway is a good idea.

Clearly, there are very few absolutes in aviation... But some here are trying to create them. Sorry guys, it doesn't work that way. Without absolutes, we develop and use judgement to make these calls.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Yesyesyes to Kent's post.
The only way to zero risk is zero flying. (that's what the faa wants, that's what many nanny groups want)

Choose your own level of risk/safety. Don't try to impose your level on anyone else.

 

[denverpilot]

I have no disagreements with the reasoned exceptions. I took up a stance of disagreement with the person who's only additional factor was money.

In all of these cases money is never the deciding factor. If you can't afford to "waste" $100 waiting for a takeoff, you're way "behind the power curve" for the current cost of aviation.

Plus, the ignition switch does turn off as well as on... It's a rental? Shut it off and re-start it every minute for all you care. The owner won't like it, but there's more than one way to manage a Hobbs meter!

Whether or not that takeoff would be "safe" is derived from other factors, I totally agree. And I also agree that there's no such thing as "safe" in all the things we do in life.

What I won't allow (in my head) is letting the cost of the flight push me to doing something I don't want to do during a flight. That's all I was trying to point out. The head-games are bad enough without worrying about the checking account balance dropping while taxiing.

If I have to land and fuel at an airport that has $6/gal AvGas... So be it. Maybe I'll get out the chart and plan a short leg to somewhere cheaper to top off, but if the weather or other factors say "land here", I'm not going to press on to somewhere else because they have high gas prices or are known for 30 minute taxi times.

Let's revisit that whole straw-man a bit too. These scenarios that have one "stacked up" behind a pile of jets are typically at a handful of airports that are pretty avoidable for private aviation. The folks who've said they've had it happen had a "mission" or reason to go into that airport and probably knew they'd see that on the way out, right?

We're starting to mix up the flying-for-fun scenarios and flying-to-meet a schedule or make a living scenarios a bit. Makes it even harder to discuss the original question of, "Would you take an intersection departure?"

What I think we've all learned is that you need the whole scenario to make a good decision, and that some of us would do it, some would rather not, and one has even done it and been bitten by it. We haven't yet seen anyone pop up saying taking full-length made their flight less safe. Just the other way around only, so far.

The scenario that added a dollar cost to it, is a good case study on why not to have money anywhere near the forefront of your mind in the fly-for-fun scenario. If all other factors say "go" and it just happens to save you a few bucks, that's gravy. If all other factors say "use full length" and you're short-circuiting that decision because of a $100 loss, that's not reasonable aeronautical decision-making anymore. That's letting your wallet fly the airplane.

 

[Aztec Driver]

Bruce,

Here are the details of my intersection departure. I understand your reasons, but I'd like to detail my reasoning. I will accept an intersection departure only under strict conditions.
1. The distance must be greater than accelerate-stop distance.
2. There must be at least some headwind - no tailwind component.
3. Lightly loaded.

I had a 5-10 knot headwind component, the other runway they would have allowed me to taxi to had a crosswind component. The tower advised me there was 4500 feet left. I assume that included the overrun area. There was very little of any type of housing in the departure area for several miles, presumably because they have huge transports coming in and out of there constantly. I was 600 pounds lighter than full gross weight. Accelerate- stop was calculated to be around 3000 feet with the current conditions, allowing for several seconds of response time.

Since I quite routinely operate out of a significantly shorter runway, I saw no undue risk in the procedure, at least not anymore risk than normal.

 

[ebetancourt]

Interesting and thought provoking thread, but it would be nice to split into two threads one for singles and one for multi-engine airplanes. The issues are different.

For singles, wind needs to be discussed a lot more. If winds are howling down the runway, and there is an altitude at which you consider a turnback "safe" then an intersection might be the safest alternative. Last time I asked a tower for an intersection departure, the winds were right down the runway 25G45. I chose to take off with "just" 2,000 feet remaining in a Mooney - on a runway 8,600 feet long. In my judgement, the only way I could have turned back and still landed on the runway. And at that ground speed, an early problem straight ahead would only have hurt the insurance company.

Ernie