Runway turnouts

FORANE

FORANE

En-Route
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
4,457
Location
TN
Display Name
FORANE
Home Airfield
0a9
The picture is of my home airport 0A9 during the runway extension. Unfortunately I don't have a current picture. Point C is the area of displaced threshold. Point A is where traffic taxi's to typically. Point B is what I have referred to as a turnout at the end of the runway.

Question, is there an official name for what I call a turnout?

On a few occasions I have moved into position on the turnout and waited for pattern traffic to land only to have the landing traffic either go around or request I depart in front of them because they don't want to land with me in the turnout. To be clear, my plane is a tiny lancair. I have stated that I'm clear, the runway is yours, we'll wait for you to land... No matter, some just aren't comfortable with it.

Am I wrong to use the turnout waiting for landing traffic?

5ef2f0b6350b5.image (1) (1).jpg
 
I've heard that area referred to as a keyhole, and at my home field it's not uncommon for a plane to hold there for landing traffic.
 
I don’t know the official response to this but I think it’s weird that 1) you’d go to that spot with landing traffic and 2) landing traffic would throw a hissy fit over it and not land normally.
BUT, since you call it a “RUNWAY turnout*”, I’d say you prob shouldn’t be on it while traffic is landing.

I get it, you’re trying to expedite your takeoff, I get it. I’d land normally.


*I googled it and don’t seem to come up with anything called a runway turnout but maybe my thumbs ain’t working this morning.
 
Is there a hold short demarcation line painted on the keyhole? If not, I’d consider that the runway with insufficient clearance to hold for landing traffic.

Edit….looking at google satellite view it does not. I would hold short at point A in your image above. You can back taxi to the keyhole if you wish for immediate takeoff, but don’t hang out there waiting for landing traffic.
 
Last edited:
Brad Z said:
Is there a hold short demarcation line painted on the keyhole? If not, I’d consider that the runway with insufficient clearance to hold for landing traffic.

Edit….looking at google satellite view it does not. I would hold short at point A in your image above. You can back taxi to the keyhole if you wish for immediate takeoff, but don’t hang out there waiting for landing traffic.
Click to expand...
Google satellite has the old runway prior to the extension addition. Or at least that's what I see now looking on my phone.
The turnout does have a line painted at the side of the runway between the runway and the turnout. I don't recall if it is a single or double line.

I'll contrast that with mountain City airport 6A4 which has 2 separate turnouts at the same end of the runway. Neither of those turnouts have a line. What would be the purpose of those if not to wait for landing traffic?
 
A displaced threshold is still the runway.
FORANE said:
Google satellite has the old runway prior to the extension addition. Or at least that's what I see now looking on my phone.
The turnout does have a line painted at the side of the runway between the runway and the turnout. I don't recall if it is a single or double line.

I'll contrast that with mountain City airport 6A4 which has 2 separate turnouts at the same end of the runway. Neither of those turnouts have a line. What would be the purpose of those if not to wait for landing traffic?
Click to expand...
I believe the turnouts are designed to aid with the turn-around after back taxi.

In terms of the displaced threshold- that is still the runway. The fact that it is unavailable for touchdown in one direction does not make it any less of an active runway space. For that reason, unless the turn around has a hold short line, it would also be part of an active runway space. Just one guy on the internet’s interpretation.

Even if it is legal - is it the best idea? What are you risking for (30 seconds?) of time saving? Hold short at the hold short line.
 
I've heard it referred to in different ways. I think the ICAO term is "turn pad." There was one where I learned to fly, but it, and many I've seen since, are marked with runway hold short lines. Unless this is new and part of the runway extension so it hasn't been marked yet, the fact that it does not have runway hold short markings suggests to me that there is not enough clearance from the runway under airport design standards and it is part of the runway itself. Intended to give an airplane that wants the extra length a place to turn around, not a place to stop and wait for landing traffic.
 
Last edited:
To me, that area simply seems to be a little extra pavement to facilitate turning around after back-taxiing from point A. Without any demarcation showing otherwise, it should be treated as part of the runway.
 
Here's one local to me. 35'x2800 runway. It's expected you back taxi and hold short in the keyhole. Without markings I wouldn't use it as a hold short. But I'd have absolutely zero hesitation to land if someone was there.

IMG_1525.jpeg
 
LOL Just like the sleep apnea questionnaire.
But it's a good bet that if the turnaround pad were large enough dimensionally, it would be painted as such....it's the DIMENSION that is protective.

However, I gotta say if he's occupying the runway I ain't landing, so good that he asks.
 
Large planes do not turn on a dime, that space is for them to reverse direction and depart.

I have received "cleared for departure, back taxi approved" with that configuration. That added about 400 feet to a 4,000 foot runway.
 
My version of google earth has more striping. But still not a hold short demarcation

1752674723203.png
 
Presence of a hold short line would clearly indicate it's ok to be there. At my field there's a hold short on the taxiway but not in the pic @Racerx posted so it's reasonable to conclude the turnaround should not be occupied.
What about the plethora of small fields with turnarounds but no markings? Are those ok? Not ok? If not ok, then what are they for?
 
My question is, why go to the trouble? If you really have enough time to taxi over there, turn around, and get stopped (assuming you're not rushing it), why not just takeoff?

ETA: At an uncontrolled field, if you're on the other side of the line shown on Google maps, I'd land and not care. I'll look it up if I have a moment later, but I recall a YouTuber who got busted for announcing clear of the runway when he wasn't. The FAA said he didn't have to be part the hold-short line to be clear, but he did have to be past the runway edge.
 
Last edited:
It all goes into Airport Design criteria.

Runways are supposed to have Runway Safety Areas. There are exceptions, but a standard RSA is 250 feet either side of the runway centerline, and 1,000 feet from the end of the threshold. The runway hold position markings are typically at or near the edge of the runway safety area, again there are exceptions depending on the airfield geometry.

The turnaround on the end usually exists because there is not a taxiway to the end and there is a need to back-taxi to use all of the runway. Some aircraft may not be able to make the 180 degree turn in the width of the runway, so the keyhole turnaround is created. If the turnaround is large enough to have adequate space outside of the RSA, it will be marked with a runway hold position marking. In many cases, it is not large enough, because it is only large enough to facilitate the turn movement of the larger aircraft. An aircraft holding in the keyhole is in the RSA, and technically occupying the runway just the same as an aircraft holding beyond the hold position markings on a taxiway.

Now at an untowered GA field, is there any rule preventing two aircraft from occupying the runway simultaneously? Kind of a gray area, but if the other pilot was uncomfortable with it, they are always free to go around.

I have experienced at a busy GA field with a keyhole like these, an entire group of aircraft back-taxiing to the keyhole together and departing from it one at a time, but I myself would be a little uncomfortable having landing traffic passing nearly overhead.
 
FORANE said:
Presence of a hold short line would clearly indicate it's ok to be there. At my field there's a hold short on the taxiway but not in the pic @Racerx posted so it's reasonable to conclude the turnaround should not be occupied.
What about the plethora of small fields with turnarounds but no markings? Are those ok? Not ok? If not ok, then what are they for?
Click to expand...
Not okay. Not to say it doesn't happen, particularly with prior consent, but generally speaking they're not a place to hang out.
 
I suppose I've been doing this in a not-okay way, but at a busy GA airport it sure makes it easier if you can taxi there and hold, then squeeze out between training flights in the pattern.

I've pulled in behind another plane already in the hammerhead/keyhole/whatever below so we could both time our exits in between other touch-and-go traffic. I suppose w/o a hold short marking this is obviously not appropriate, so I'll definitely avoid the situation again. But with the displaced threshold it seems slightly safer than if it were after the threshold.

1752677779958.png
 
FORANE said:
Presence of a hold short line would clearly indicate it's ok to be there. At my field there's a hold short on the taxiway but not in the pic @Racerx posted so it's reasonable to conclude the turnaround should not be occupied.
What about the plethora of small fields with turnarounds but no markings? Are those ok? Not ok? If not ok, then what are they for?
Click to expand...
With such a large displaced threshhold and a large turnaround area. I probably would have done the same thing as I'm used to a much smaller area at 10c on a much smaller runway, but they also have a hold short. Then again with 4,000' of runway, I'm not sure I would have gone through the hassle of using the displaced threshold anyway. I may or may not have caught the lack of a hold short here if i were to use it. I was looking at a trip to 0A9 a few months back so I appreciate this discussion.
 
Larry in TN said:
What do the regulations have to say about this at a non-towered field?
Click to expand...

As I said in my earlier post, its a gray area. By occupying the keyhole inside the runway safety area, you are technically occupying the runway. However there is no FAR that prohibits two aircraft from occupying the runway at the same time at an untowered airport. There are ATC separation standards, but they are not applicable. At a towered airport, it would be a runway incursion. The textbook definition of a runway incursion is "Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take off of aircraft." Without ATC, who defines what is incorrect?

A lot of this is academic. In practice, it just is not a good idea to be on the end of the runway or the keyhole while another aircraft is landing.
 
There's one at KSFY, a little rural airport that I frequent. It's really just big enough to help with turning around after back-taxi.
I've had the opposite problem once: I intended to takeoff before traffic arrived, but the incoming intended to land despite my presence. So I just announced I'll hold in position for landing traffic. Wasn't thrilled about being so close to landing traffic -- but we both survived. And now I make sure to haul-asss when I'm back-taxiing so that I don't get stuck down there!

Unlike your rwy -- this one has the demarcation lines for runway. But unless you're going in the grass it's not very accessible to get back there.

1752679481775.png
 
geezer said:
Large planes do not turn on a dime, that space is for them to reverse direction and depart.
Click to expand...

Some smaller planes cannot do a U-turn on some runways.
 
Brad Z said:
Not okay. Not to say it doesn't happen, particularly with prior consent, but generally speaking they're not a place to hang out.
Click to expand...
Sorry, we've had a miscommunication. By ok I meant if there's a hold short line present then you're ok to hold short of that line. I didn't mean to pass that line and proceed to the turnout which lacks a line.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
There's one at KSFY, a little rural airport that I frequent. It's really just big enough to help with turning around after back-taxi.
I've had the opposite problem once: I intended to takeoff before traffic arrived, but the incoming intended to land despite my presence. So I just announced I'll hold in position for landing traffic. Wasn't thrilled about being so close to landing traffic -- but we both survived. And now I make sure to haul-asss when I'm back-taxiing so that I don't get stuck down there!

Unlike your rwy -- this one has the demarcation lines for runway. But unless you're going in the grass it's not very accessible to get back there.

View attachment 142880
Click to expand...

This doesn't look like a turnaround - it looks like the beginning of a new taxiway and then they ran out of money super fast and stopped lol.
 
Last edited:
Racerx said:
With such a large displaced threshhold and a large turnaround area. I probably would have done the same thing as I'm used to a much smaller area at 10c on a much smaller runway, but they also have a hold short. Then again with 4,000' of runway, I'm not sure I would have gone through the hassle of using the displaced threshold anyway. I may or may not have caught the lack of a hold short here if i were to use it. I was looking at a trip to 0A9 a few months back so I appreciate this discussion.
Click to expand...
Look me up.
No night operation without a checkout. Unlit mountains in the traffic pattern...
 
midwestpa24 said:
there is no FAR that prohibits two aircraft from occupying the runway at the same time at an untowered airport
Click to expand...
Exactly. 91.126-91.127. That's the first step. Now, do any of the right-of-way rules apply to this situation?

As far as, "at an untowered airport", are there any regulations which prohibit it at a towered airport?

What I am trying to do is separate everyone's assumptions about what is prohibited from what is actually prohibited.
 
Larry in TN said:
Exactly. 91.126-91.127. That's the first step. Now, do any of the right-of-way rules apply to this situation?

As far as, "at an untowered airport", are there any regulations which prohibit it at a towered airport?

What I am trying to do is separate everyone's assumptions about what is prohibited from what is actually prohibited.
Click to expand...

Interesting, you sent me down a small rabbit hole with the reference.

91.126
(c) Flap settings. Except when necessary for training or certification, the pilot in command of a civil turbojet-powered aircraft must use, as a final flap setting, the minimum certificated landing flap setting set forth in the approved performance information in the Airplane Flight Manual for the applicable conditions. However, each pilot in command has the final authority and responsibility for the safe operation of the pilot's airplane, and may use a different flap setting for that airplane if the pilot determines that it is necessary in the interest of safety.

So a jet pilot must use the minimum flap setting setting approved in the AFM, unless for training or certification, or if the PIC determines it isn't safe to do so.

I wonder which accident spurred the need for that paragraph.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
This doesn't look like a turnaround - it looks like the. beginning of a new taxiway and then they ran out of money super fast and stopped lol.
Click to expand...
Sometimes that is done in anticipation of a future parallel taxiway, if the airport master plan calls for it. That way when the taxiway is built, they don't have to close the runway a second time.

We do the same thing on runway reconstruction or rehabilitation projects. All connector taxiways get done at the same time as the runway up to the edge of the RSA.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Interesting, you sent me down a small rabbit hole with the reference.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, 91.126 - 91.131 should be familiar to all pilots as they are the regs which tell you what you must do when operating in the vicinity of airports. Far too many pilots just do what they've always done and have no idea why or even if what they do is supported by the rules.
 
Larry in TN said:
In my opinion, 91.126 - 91.131 should be familiar to all pilots as they are the regs which tell you what you must do when operating in the vicinity of airports. Far too many pilots just do what they've always done and have no idea why or even if what they do is supported by the rules.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. The rest I am familiar with, but either that paragraph is new, or I skipped it since I've never been an official jet jockey.
 
midwestpa24 said:
The rest I am familiar with, but either that paragraph is new, or I skipped it since I've never been an official jet jockey.
Click to expand...
It, or something very similar, has been there as long as I've been flying jets which would be 1996.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
There's one at KSFY, a little rural airport that I frequent. It's really just big enough to help with turning around after back-taxi.
I've had the opposite problem once: I intended to takeoff before traffic arrived, but the incoming intended to land despite my presence. So I just announced I'll hold in position for landing traffic. Wasn't thrilled about being so close to landing traffic -- but we both survived. And now I make sure to haul-asss when I'm back-taxiing so that I don't get stuck down there!

Unlike your rwy -- this one has the demarcation lines for runway. But unless you're going in the grass it's not very accessible to get back there.

View attachment 142880
Click to expand...
That looks like a dead end, not a cul-de-sac.
 
Larry in TN said:
What do the regulations have to say about this at a non-towered field?
Click to expand...
Reading through the FAR sections mentioned in this thread (and a few other sections) I am unable to answer this question.
 
FORANE said:
Reading through the FAR sections mentioned in this thread (and a few other sections) I am unable to answer this question.
Click to expand...
All I have is 91.111 a No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
Runway is owned by CITY OF ELIZABETHTON and there is no rule against more than one aircraft being on the runway at the same time.

If it's clear that you can land without creating a collision hazard, then no foul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top