Poll - intersection takeoffs and landing long

[alfadog]

Scenario - landing long.

Say your preferred runway at your home airport is 6000' feet long and you park at the departure end of it. You are flying a Cessna 172 (or a Cherokee if you do not fly Cessna) and, given your weight and DA, can get down and stopped in 1500' easy. If you land on the numbers you have a long taxi and have to cross an intersecting runway. If you touch down past the first 1/3 of the runway you can exit where you have only a short taxi to your parking spot. This is a busy controlled airport and you cannot linger on the runway but must exit promptly.

Do you land long, say with 3500 feet remaining at touchdown? This is your home airport so you are familiar with it.

Scenario - intersection takeoff.

Say your preferred runway at your home airport is 6000' feet long and you park at the departure end of it. You are flying a Cessna 172 (or a Cherokee if you do not fly Cessna) and, given your weight and DA, can get off and clear in 1500' easy. As you taxi toward the run-up area you see four planes from the local flight school doing run-ups. You know they sometimes take a while so you think about asking for an intersection departure and the possibility of sneaking out earlier than if you went to the end.

Do you ask for the intersection, say with 3500 feet remaining? This is your home airport so you are familiar with it.

Discuss.

 

[TMetzinger]

At a controlled airport, I'd coordinate with the tower, but under normal conditions would be fine landing long and taking the intersection departure when I'm solo.

If I've got passengers, I take full length. I feel I have a duty to minimize risk to my passengers. Or, put another way, I don't think I have the right to raise the risk to them.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I don't do it, but I don't particularly have a problem with it either, if you're not pushing the performance envelope of your plane and the tower is okay with it.

 

[Sac Arrow]

At a controlled airport, I'd coordinate with the tower, but under normal conditions would be fine landing long and taking the intersection departure when I'm solo.

If I've got passengers, I take full length. I feel I have a duty to minimize risk to my passengers. Or, put another way, I don't think I have the right to raise the risk to them.

I wouldn't do anything solo that I wouldn't do with passengers. You owe people on the ground just as much consideration as you do your passengers.

 

[alfadog]

I don't do it, but I don't particularly have a problem with it either, if you're not pushing the performance envelope of your plane and the tower is okay with it.

This poll is about what you would do. It is well within the envelope and if the runway length were 3500' total you would have no second thoughts about getting in or out.

 

[Everskyward]

I have often done both in small airplanes and am comfortable with it.

 

[Sac Arrow]

This poll is about what you would do. It is well within the envelope and if the runway length were 3500' total you would have no second thoughts about getting in or out.

I would do it, yes. I just don't normally.

 

[rainsux]

6,000' ?

Takeoff: I always use full length.

Landing: I always touchdown at about the ~1,500 and power-off roll-out delivers me
to the stub taxiway into my hangar. Any longer or shorter and I end-up needing to
use the (more congested) parallel/full-length taxiway.

 

[alfadog]

I would do it, yes. I just don't normally.

On the landing scenario, in what case would you do it? Because, for me, if it is something you would do then you might do it a rule unless there is something like wind or weather that puts you off. So, I guess, at least for the landing scenario, if you would do it at all then why would you not do it normally?

 

[alfadog]

6,000' ?

Takeoff: I always use full length.

Landing: I always touchdown at about the ~1,500 and power-off roll-out delivers me
to the stub taxiway into my hangar. Any longer or shorter and I end-up needing to
use the (more congested) parallel/full-length taxiway.

Let's say you needed to touch down at ~2,500 to accomplish that convenience? I deliberately put the touchdown past the 1/3 length that most pilots (oops, there I go again sounding like I know what most pilots do) consider acceptable. Would you touchdown at ~2,500?

 

[weilke]

Takeoff full length, never leaves me in a situation where I can't return to the airport if the fan quits.

No downside to landing long.

 

[TMetzinger]

I wouldn't do anything solo that I wouldn't do with passengers. You owe people on the ground just as much consideration as you do your passengers.

I owe them MORE than I do passengers. But I don't see how this affects people on the ground... They don't live on the airport property.

 

[Captain]

I do both. I leave a healthy margin on both sides though. There's 10K foot runways out there with the FBO at the end. No need to taxi for a mile and a half (or two miles if taking off) if you don't need to.

 

[tonycondon]

Takeoff full length, never leaves me in a situation where I can't return to the airport if the fan quits.

that completely depends on runway length and wind conditions.

 

[Morne]

6,000' ?

Takeoff: I always use full length.

That. Even at monster towered airports, like KROW, I taxi all the way down and use the full length. Fly the entire runway before turning to course. Take-off is the most dangerous phase of flight for a light single in the event of engine failure so I want every second over pavement that I can buy. Some day it might save my life.

Landing is very different. You don't need an engine to land, especially at a 6,000' strip. Also, we should all be capable of spot landing. So landing long, especially when the remaining runway is more than double what I need, is no big deal at all.

I have landed long on purpose many times. Sometimes because the parking spot I am going to is clear on the far end of the field (why taxi when you can float). Other times because traffic behind me wants to use the first turn off. It is a combination of convenience and courtesy.

Besides, if you don't like landing beyond the numbers how can you handle KOSH and the different colored dots?

 

[Fearless Tower]

This is a busy controlled airport and you cannot linger on the runway but must exit promptly.

I have no problem landing long or doing intersection takeoffs (depending on the intersection/runway remaining...etc), but the part I quoted is what gives me pause about attempting a long landing there.

Trying to keep up the traffic flow and get slow enough to ensure that you get it down and stopped on a self imposed shorter runway is asking for trouble IMO.

My particular experience has been that in such a situation described (busy, towered airport), the tower will not approve a request for a long landing if you specifically ask for it.

 

[EppyGA]

No intersection take offs, but will land long if it works. A couple of weeks ago we were flying Young Eagles and there was a fair amount of other traffic also. On several landings I was asked to expedite to the taxiway so landing long was helpful.

 

[Sac Arrow]

On the landing scenario, in what case would you do it? Because, for me, if it is something you would do then you might do it a rule unless there is something like wind or weather that puts you off. So, I guess, at least for the landing scenario, if you would do it at all then why would you not do it normally?

When I say I don't do it, I mean for my specific landing scenario. Landing long doesn't save me a significant amount of taxi plus the tower gets excited if you don't ask first. Secondly, I like to practice hitting the numbers and making the first turnout. Regarding intersection takeoffs, my tower generally doesn't allow them other than for CHP and medical aircraft that are in a big hurry.

In your scenario, I would probably ordinarily land at the threshold just for the practice and land long if I was in a hurry. In the same scenario, I would probably ordinarily do an intersection takeoff unless there are planes lined up at the end for departure.

 

[Fearless Tower]

That. Even at monster towered airports, like KROW, I taxi all the way down and use the full length. Fly the entire runway before turning to course. Take-off is the most dangerous phase of flight for a light single in the event of engine failure so I want every second over pavement that I can buy. Some day it might save my life.

So, here's a scenario for you:

You are departing from PHX in a light GA (single or twin) from the FBO on the Southwest corner of the field. Ground tells you to taxi 25L intersection takeoff at H7. Are you going to say no and request to cross 25L and taxi to G8 for full length (7800')?

FWIW, even if you depart from H7, you will likely be told to turn well before you get to the end of the runway.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1207/00322AD.PDF

 

[Fearless Tower]

On several landings I was asked to expedite to the taxiway so landing long was helpful.

Not doubting your particular example, but it can depend alot on the airport runway/taxiway layout.

At MYF, it is the guys who land long and use the full length that cause the go-arounds.

Similar at SDM, the runway is so long (8000') that the guys in piston singles that land long keep the runway tied up longer and why tower will deny the request if you ask for it during a busy period.

 

[silver-eagle]

I've only done one intersection takeoff which saved me a 3/4 mile taxi. I had 3/4 mile runway left so I had more than enough room. As to landing, I aim for the numbers. Id rather have a 3/4 mile taxi ahead of me than not enough runway.

 

[fgcason]

I grew up on 1500-3000ft runways. If I live at the far end, a 6000ft runway is just a 2500ft runway with a 3500ft displaced threshold.

 

[rottydaddy]

I've done both, at various airports. Never right at the limits of airplane and conditions, but close enough that other factors needed consideration, for takeoff, anyway. Assuming even book-standard conditions and a healthy airplane loaded properly, the area surrounding the runway can still be really important.
For me, it would ultimately depend on obstructions and straight-ahead emergency landing options. If the plan is to break ground with less than 1/3 of the runway remaining, it's wise to consider exactly what might happen if the airplane won't climb as expected.
Landing long, same rule applies- for a go-around, or in the event that you commit to a landing with too much energy, or lose brakes.

Saving some taxi time is not really a very compelling reason to not use the whole runway, but if you've thought it all out, it shouldn't be a big deal.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Saving some taxi time is not really a very compelling reason to not use the whole runway, but if you've thought it all out, it shouldn't be a big deal.

Just out of curiousity....did you ever request full length on 26R in the Champ at SDM?

 

[Morne]

So, here's a scenario for you:

You are departing from PHX in a light GA (single or twin) from the FBO on the Southwest corner of the field. Ground tells you to taxi 25L intersection takeoff at H7. Are you going to say no and request to cross 25L and taxi to G8 for full length (7800')?

FWIW, even if you depart from H7, you will likely be told to turn well before you get to the end of the runway.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1207/00322AD.PDF

I have turned down intersection departures before and would in the scenario you present. They can let me use the full length or I can park and come up to the tower and explain it to them in person. I am PIC, not them. Nobody ever crashed sitting in a tower.

Look up KBJJ, my home field. To depart with winds from the east I have to backtaxi 2000' or so because the taxiway is not full length parallel. And I do, every single time the winds are from the east.

 

[Everskyward]

I think it really depends on the airport layout. Here is a real example.

Landing on 35R they want you to stay on the runway until at least A9 if you are going to one of the FBOs on the north half of the field. Otherwise you will be blocking traffic taxiing to the departure end on A. A9 appears to be at least 5,000' from the approach end of 35R. This would mean a very long rollout in a small airplane if you landed at the end.

Using the same airport in a no-wind condition, would you depart on 10? Many people do. If you would do that why wouldn't you depart from intersection A14 or A16 which gives you more runway length than 10?

 

[Fearless Tower]

I have turned down intersection departures before and would in the scenario you present. They can let me use the full length or I can park and come up to the tower and explain it to them in person. I am PIC, not them. Nobody ever crashed sitting in a tower.

Look up KBJJ, my home field. To depart with winds from the east I have to backtaxi 2000' or so because the taxiway is not full length parallel. And I do, every single time the winds are from the east.

I'm not talking about your home field.

Did you even notice the airport and taxiway diagram I referenced? Phoenix Sky Harbor. VERY busy class B.......I don't think you are going to park at the base of the tower and come up for a chat.

You are giving up about 700' of a 7800' runway by taking the intersection departure. But you could be waiting another 20 minutes or more to depart in the 100+ heat if you really want that extra bit of runway.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I think it really depends on the airport layout.

EXACTLY

 

[Morne]

I'm not talking about your home field.

Did you even notice the airport and taxiway diagram I referenced? Phoenix Sky Harbor. VERY busy class B.......I don't think you are going to park at the base of the tower and come up for a chat.

You are giving up about 700' of a 7800' runway by taking the intersection departure. But you could be waiting another 20 minutes or more to depart in the 100+ heat if you really want that extra bit of runway.

Yes, I looked at the diagram. Yes, it sucks that the taxiway doesn't go to the end and you have to cross the runway to get to the end.

But my point is about a slippery slope versus a hard personal limitation. I do not accept intersection departures, period. If I accept one due to convenience, then where do I draw the line? My home field is quite germane, because I CAN take off to the east without back taxiing in my 182 with STOL but I don't. Why wouldn't you accept an intersection departure where only 2000' of a 10,000' runway remains? The bird can do it, right?

LOTS of personal minimums are arbitrary and inconvenient. But having the discipline to stick to them is important.

I'll bet the tower boys at KROW laughed themselves stupid when I taxied all the way to the end of their 9,999' runway. But being a disciplined aviator means sticking to your personal minimums even when inconvenient or amusing.

 

[Fearless Tower]

But being a disciplined aviator means sticking to your personal minimums even when inconvenient or amusing.

Discipline is great, but when taken to excess.....discipline doesn't really buy you anything. Using that kind of logic, one could easily develop a 'personal minimum' to only operate out of fields with 8000' or longer runways.

So, when PHX tower tells you to turn left before you reach the end of the runway.....are you going to refuse that one?

 

[Morne]

Discipline is great, but when taken to excess.....discipline doesn't really buy you anything. Using that kind of logic, one could easily develop a 'personal minimum' to only operate out of fields with 8000' or longer runways.

So, when PHX tower tells you to turn left before you reach the end of the runway.....are you going to refuse that one?

The thread is about intersection take offs and landings, not tower instructions in the air. Further, while that instructuction might be "likely" you don't have a crystal ball. Sacrificing certain pavement for uncertain instructions seems odd to me.

Nor is this thread about skipping 3000' runways in favor of 8000' runways. You're trying to compare apples and chives.

Why are you so defensive? Just because I fly this way doesn't mean you have to. Use the last 1000' of runway for take off for all I care. Not my bird and not my butt.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The thread is about intersection take offs and landings, not tower instructions in the air. Further, while that instructuction might be "likely" you don't have a crystal ball. Sacrificing certain pavement for uncertain instructions seems odd to me.

Nor is this thread about skipping 3000' runways in favor of 8000' runways. You're trying to compare apples and chives.

Why are you so defensive? Just because I fly this way doesn't mean you have to. Use the last 1000' of runway for take off for all I care. Not my bird and not my butt.

Not defensive, just pointing out the silliness in some blanket statements.

You were the one who said you should never turn before the end of the runway, that is why I brought it up. My point all along has been that the depends alot on the particular airport.

 

[Morne]

Call me silly, then. I am not an uber-macho cowboy with pilot skills honed on a laser edge. I am a fairly low-time pilot. I would like to live long enough to get really good at this flying thing.

So, just like the tower boys at KROW, you can point your finger and laugh at me and my straight leg 182 STOL using 2 miles of pavement for a 700' take off roll. But when/if Murphy comes to call on climb out I am more likely to get down safe. Not very silly in my view.

 

[Everskyward]

Call me silly, then.

I don't think anyone is calling you silly. This thread was about what YOU would do. Different people stated their position but no one is trying to make you do something you don't want to do. Interesting to see the responses but everyone has their own reasons which are not necessarily right or wrong.

 

[EppyGA]

I don't think anyone is calling you silly. This thread was about what YOU would do. Different people stated their position but no one is trying to make you do something you don't want to do. Interesting to see the responses but everyone has their own reasons which are not necessarily right or wrong.

I think the issue is that we state our position and then someone feels compelled to come along and criticize or critique it. Kind of makes one not want to respond.

Why not just accept the position and leave well enough alone? Just doesn't seem to happen as there always seems to be someone who knows better.

 

[poadeleted20]

In general, I believe in the Three Most Useless Things in Flying, including "runway behind me." Nevertheless, when conditions are right, I'll take an intersection takeoff or make a long landing for convenience. But each one is weighed carefully based on current conditions and what I'm flying and my current level of proficiency in type.

 

[Everskyward]

Why not just accept the position and leave well enough alone? Just doesn't seem to happen as there always seems to be someone who knows better.

That's true but sometimes when someone is trying to defend their own position they sometimes indadvertently end up making the other side look wrong. So now we have the people who would use the intersection seeming reckless and the ones who would not seeming overly cautious.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Call me silly, then. I am not an uber-macho cowboy with pilot skills honed on a laser edge. I am a fairly low-time pilot. I would like to live long enough to get really good at this flying thing.

So, just like the tower boys at KROW, you can point your finger and laugh at me and my straight leg 182 STOL using 2 miles of pavement for a 700' take off roll. But when/if Murphy comes to call on climb out I am more likely to get down safe. Not very silly in my view.

Not calling you silly Morne, just pointing out different conditions that can make a difference in the decision making and as you pointed out, different levels of pilot ability can influence that as well.

 

[EppyGA]

That's true but sometimes when someone is trying to defend their own position they sometimes indadvertently end up making the other side look wrong. So now we have the people who would use the intersection seeming reckless and the ones who would not seeming overly cautious.

There are a lot of circumstances where an intersection would be far from careless and for those that use them have at it. Maybe the time will come where I'll do one but I'm still of the "runway behind you" gang.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

It's hard for me to answer the original question because I am the only pilot in this country who has never flown a Cessna 172.

But.

I have been working on breaking the habit of always touching down near the numbers. At ONZ it's 1600 to 2000 feet to the first turnoff and that makes for such a long taxi on the runway to get there.

I typically taxi down to the end to use the whole runway for takeoff.