Windy & Challenging Short Field Takeoff

FlyingMonkey

FlyingMonkey

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 31, 2014
Messages
408
Display Name
Display name:
FlyingMonkey
I recently had a challenging short(ish) field situation when we went down to Agua Caliente Hot Springs for a fun day, documented in this video along with some family fun.
 
Looked close, but good on you to not try to yank it higher.

One thing on WIndy.. If you use the ECMWF model, the gust forecast is usually ridiculously high, while the steady wind is usually spot on.
 
Hang 4 said:
Looked close, but good on you to not try to yank it higher.

One thing on WIndy.. If you use the ECMWF model, the gust forecast is usually ridiculously high, while the steady wind is usually spot on.
Click to expand...

Good to know thanks for the tip! It seems like a good tool for general planning at an airport like this.
 
Yikes. Very appreciate re the background re the planning... first class.
My plane is too light to take off downwind... I would have had to wait until later, or in the AM... not a bad place to hang out tho...
 
AGLyme said:
Yikes. Very appreciate re the background re the planning... first class.
My plane is too light to take off downwind... I would have had to wait until later, or in the AM... not a bad place to hang out tho...
Click to expand...
What does weight have to do with it?
 
In reference to the masks...

upload_2020-6-17_14-14-31.jpeg
 
What would I have done.??

I would have pointed it into the wind and after about 50 feet AGL turn away from the rising terrain.

Then again, I have tons of experience in doing just that and mostly off shorter dirt strips and close to max gross weight. And I would never try to talk you into what I would do.

One thing really worried me was hearing the stall horn at rotation. Once in the air with the stall horn and any loss of lift, or any downdraft and this might have been a different video.

I have seen many Cherokee 6 flying in the bush so I know it is a capable airplane.

Good on ya for pre-flight take off planning, and knowing your planes capability and your use of technology to help make the decision. In the bush I had to make such calculations in my head. I would also come up with a minimum speed to be at when passing the mid-field point. Except I called it the ''this is going to hurt point'' since I was in a Chieftain, so if I lost an engine at that point or after it was going to hurt before I could get stopped. Which would not be on the landing strip.

I did notice one thing in the video. You are vastly outnumbered... I hope you have your own bathroom at home.... :lol:
 
Finally got a chance to watch...another great video. Did you get a read on the the actual tailwind? With the sock standing out like that I don't think I would've tried the tailwind takeoff; obviously it worked out. Looked to me like 11 and the early turnout might've been the safer option, but I'm sure it looks different in real life than in video.
 
Just watched and true nail biter at the end. Looks like you cleared the numbers in ground effect?
I personally would have taken off into that wind. That sock looked pretty stiff! I would have been off much sooner and I don’t mind the climbing turn. Sure I see the point of less options if the fan craps out but you got to trust your equipment- similar to how you trust your math- which is a valid approach as well.
Over I really liked the video though, informative split screen with map was pretty cool. Fun to follow!
 
yup, into the wind on this one. Plenty of folks will come along and spell it out. @Zeldman pretty much gave it away already.

better lucky than good.
 
In my opinion that was poor aviation decision making.

With a little bad luck I feel the flight would have ended badly.

Given the location of the hill there may have been rotors coming off of them making takeoff to the POH numbers unlikely.

I would have waited for better conditions or left passengers behind and returned solo to pick them up.
 
Last edited:
This pretty much sums it up
UxVf6f.jpg
 
Yeah, into the wind, you would've been off that runway by the halfway point probably, climb a little, then turn toward open space. Too many variables, too short a runway to do a downwind takeoff.
 
Wow that was close.

I would have taken off into the wind as well. A added guest into the wind would be trivial but had you had a unwanted guest down wind you might not have cleared.

Plus DA was only 3100 or so so your 6/300 would have had nice vertical climb to also turn after takeoff.

Either way thanks for sharing. Love the family approach and videos. They're precious cargo, you know it and it shows :)

Keep 'em coming. Maybe another 500ft of runway :)
 
I don’t think I would have done that with family on board. Solo possibly. Any degree of sink or a sudden drop in tailwind and it would have been in the weeds. Deserts produce a lot of thermals with strong updrafts and downdrafts.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the comments. I consider myself a pretty conservative aviator and do not like to take risks. This is about as far as I have pushed my personal comfort level on almost anything in flying and I was feeling pretty good about the decision in the moment but all the great comments here and on youtube have made me consider a few things I previously did not. I always like to have at least one out if not two and in this case my out was the speed achieved by the 50% mark (which is actually shorter than 50% in that direction). But an increase in tailwind after that point would have been bad (although the wind was not gusty at all), along with any strong downdrafts. You can hear the AOA indicator beeping which is a nice feature since it reminds you not to pitch up at all when it is a solid tone and to keep that nose down to build speed. Crossing over the numbers I was about 15 knots above stall speed with the 2 notches of flaps I had in. A good learning experience and one I am glad I was able to share and grow from.
 
Sheesh. That’s cutting it close!

1EEFEC2E-1648-4630-AAAD-B4D5CA713A5F.jpeg
 
Glad it worked out okay, but I’m afraid it’s events like these that make pilots say later on ‘I got away with it once before, surely I can do it again.’

That was close, don’t kid yourself. Nice video nonetheless...
 
PlasticCigar said:
I hope you read through the comments on YouTube. There is some very helpful constructive criticism there. It takes a dose of humility to swallow it down but I think you will be the better pilot for it.

If this had happened to me, I would make a learning experience out of it and sit down with my CFI and go through some of the issues: when is a downwind takeoff acceptable, what led you to believe that was a good idea, what can you do to prevent yourself from putting yourself (and family) in a situation Like that again.

Not trying to criticize but since the event already happened you might as well learn as much from it as you can.

Is your wife interested in flying lessons? I always felt like I made better choices when there were two pilot brains in the cockpit and we could bounce ideas off each other.
Click to expand...

I read through all the comments and always try to respond to all of them. Learned a lot and there were things I didn't consider. I know it looks super close on video. The plane was off the ground by 70% of the available runway and crossed the runway end 20 knots above stall speed. Still, pushed my comfort level to the edge. I have appreciated all the opinions in the discussion.
 
steingar said:
If you really have to do the calculations to convince yourself it’s safe you probably shouldn’t do it.
Click to expand...
What does this mean? You should never do calculations?
 
Ryanb said:
Glad it worked out okay, but I’m afraid it’s events like these that make pilots say later on ‘I got away with it once before, surely I can do it again.’
Click to expand...


Or...it makes them say later on..."I got away with it once, I never want to take that chance again".
 
You performed your downwind takeoff well but I would have taken off into the wind. I believe ADM takes precedence here. On the 29 departure no matter what happens after liftoff you turn right. The calculations on climb rate required to clear the hill is leaning towards being irrelevant since there is no reason to aim for or go over the hill. Perhaps the sight of that hill at the end of the runway adds to the uncertainty? It would if a pilot has never had to face that before. Another thing to consider is your ground speed in case of an aborted takeoff or botched takeoff. Stopping the plane with the lower ground speed on the upwind takeoff will be more effective than trying to stop it with the higher downwind ground speed. That could be the difference between embarrassment vs airplane damage and injuries. Yes, those calculations may be included in some takeoff data (can’t recall now) but actually experiencing it is different.

You have a nice PA32. Spent many hours in the PA32R and some in the straight leg PA32. It’s a hauler. This video can serve as an educational piece for years to come and I say that sincerely, not bashing your decision. I’ve seen the Bonanza high altitude takeoff video through the trees, but this one is of a different challenge.

Lastly, one can always do a low approach into 29 and do a climbing right turn after the end of the runway to get a flavor of the visuals if that is something the pilot has never seen before. Then when it’s takeoff time later there won’t as much mystery in that aspect should 29 be used.
 
TrueCourse said:
..........I’ve seen the Bonanza high altitude takeoff video through the trees, but this one is of a different challenge.
Click to expand...

The Bonanza takeoff through the trees was at Mears Field (3W5), Concrete WA. Elevation 267 ft. It is NEVER hot there.

The problem there is that Beech no longer publishes a short field takeoff procedure, and canceled ALL the old SFTPs from ALL manuals. We had to remove the short field procedure from our 67' King Air 65-A90. We didn't and kept it.

If the pilot would have selected approach flaps, he would have been hundreds of feet in the air at the end of the runway.
 
Sluggo63 said:
What does this mean? You should never do calculations?
Click to expand...
What I mean is really simple. If it isn't blatantly obvious that you can safely do the operation and you need to do calculations to "check" and make certain you can do things, you probably shouldn't do it. It falls under the same principle that if you have to ask is something is safe, it probably isn't. Or if you have to ask if you can afford something you probably can't. Good rules of thumb to live by.
 
kgruber said:
The Bonanza takeoff through the trees was at Mears Field (3W5), Concrete WA. Elevation 267 ft. It is NEVER hot there.
Click to expand...

If that is the same video, which it most likely is, I stand corrected. Having not watched it in a while my thoughts today were that it was high altitude. I’ll have to watch that again now that you mention no flaps.
 
steingar said:
What I mean is really simple. If it isn't blatantly obvious that you can safely do the operation and you need to do calculations to "check" and make certain you can do things, you probably shouldn't do it. It falls under the same principle that if you have to ask is something is safe, it probably isn't. Or if you have to ask if you can afford something you probably can't. Good rules of thumb to live by.
Click to expand...
Disagree completely.

You, @steingar, have a plane that you know very well, have done hundreds of takeoffs and landings, and have an "sense" of what your plane can do that by now seems intuitive, and if you find yourself having doubts, it's because that corner of your brain where that knowledge lives is speaking up and saying "No". I know that feeling too, after flying the same plane for a long time. I have that "anything >2000ft is doable even at max gross on a hot day" intuition. But not everyone has that luxury, maybe you fly whatever plane the school has available and they're all different. We train students to do these calculations because there are plenty of times when you *do* need to ask the question and the answer is not blatantly obvious. Same goes for things like fuel calculations, W&B, you name it.

I'm plenty familiar with our 172's performance at sea level in Alaska. But when I was planning my departure from Truckee in the summer, yeah, I actually dug out the book and ran some numbers. Turns out I would need about 1500 feet on a runway that's 7000, which is laughably easy. But it was a regime I'd never taken that particular plane into before, so I wanted to ask. Plus, it was fun to actually watch the runway markers on takeoff and see the calculation come to life for real.
 
kath said:
Disagree completely.

You, @steingar, have a plane that you know very well, have done hundreds of takeoffs and landings, and have an "sense" of what your plane can do that by now seems intuitive, and if you find yourself having doubts, it's because that corner of your brain where that knowledge lives is speaking up and saying "No". I know that feeling too, after flying the same plane for a long time. I have that "anything >2000ft is doable even at max gross on a hot day" intuition. But not everyone has that luxury, maybe you fly whatever plane the school has available and they're all different. We train students to do these calculations because there are plenty of times when you *do* need to ask the question and the answer is not blatantly obvious. Same goes for things like fuel calculations, W&B, you name it.

I'm plenty familiar with our 172's performance at sea level in Alaska. But when I was planning my departure from Truckee in the summer, yeah, I actually dug out the book and ran some numbers. Turns out I would need about 1500 feet on a runway that's 7000, which is laughably easy. But it was a regime I'd never taken that particular plane into before, so I wanted to ask. Plus, it was fun to actually watch the runway markers on takeoff and see the calculation come to life for real.
Click to expand...
That "intuition" is what kills a lot of pilots also. The math never fails, "intuition" does.
 
Have to agree with kath. You should review and calculate when getting closure to limits to confirm. Calculating performance for larger, high performance aircraft (take turbine aircraft for example) is SOP on every flight even if the runway is twice as long as normally necessary. Unless you cut corners and have a nonchalant attitude toward it. For smaller aircraft there should be no shame in it at all. And you need those thresholds to add in any safety margins you might want to apply (because the aircraft is tired). Rules of thumb can work in some cases but I don’t think this was one of them.
 
Salty said:
I’m not following the physics here. How would a drop in tailwind effect lift?
Click to expand...

Good catch as I may have gotten the sign of the change wrong. I believe an increase in tailwind would decrease lift, not the other way around.

Essentially it is a wind shear situation. The plane has a certain momentum and if the wind abruptly changes it takes a bit for the plane to adjust to that. During the transition the relative wind over the wings will decrease and lift will decrease.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Good catch as I may have gotten the sign of the change wrong. I believe an increase in tailwind would decrease lift, not the other way around.

Essentially it is a wind shear situation. The plane has a certain momentum and if the wind abruptly changes it takes a bit for the plane to adjust to that. During the transition the relative wind over the wings will decrease and lift will decrease.
Click to expand...
I'm with you. But, once in the air, I don't think there's any different between a tail wind and a head wind as far as sheer is concerned. Sheer is sheer.
 
Salty said:
I'm with you. But, once in the air, I don't think there's any different between a tail wind and a head wind as far as sheer is concerned. Sheer is sheer.
Click to expand...

I agree you can achieve an apparent loss in performance with either a headwind or a tailwind changing, but the direction of the change in wind speed is different - right ?

In other words, increased tailwind or decreased headwind = apparent loss of performance. And vice versa, decreased tailwind or increased headwind = apparent increase in performance. Temporarily.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I agree you can achieve an apparent loss in performance with either a headwind or a tailwind changing, but the direction of the change in wind speed is different - right ?

In other words, increased tailwind or decreased headwind = apparent loss of performance. And vice versa, decreased tailwind or increased headwind = apparent increase in performance. Temporarily.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But all that is true no matter if you started with a headwind or tailwind. I don't think starting with a tailwind makes sheer any worse or better. It just is what it is.
 
Salty said:
Agreed. But all that is true no matter if you started with a headwind or tailwind. I don't think starting with a tailwind makes sheer any worse or better. It just is what it is.
Click to expand...

Good point. I guess the one net difference practically might have been that if he had started into the wind he may have been more likely to be over the runway when dealing with a shear event. Not sure how much difference it would have made in time over the desert close to the ground.
 
kath said:
Disagree completely.

You, @steingar, have a plane that you know very well, have done hundreds of takeoffs and landings, and have an "sense" of what your plane can do that by now seems intuitive, and if you find yourself having doubts, it's because that corner of your brain where that knowledge lives is speaking up and saying "No". I know that feeling too, after flying the same plane for a long time. I have that "anything >2000ft is doable even at max gross on a hot day" intuition. But not everyone has that luxury, maybe you fly whatever plane the school has available and they're all different. We train students to do these calculations because there are plenty of times when you *do* need to ask the question and the answer is not blatantly obvious. Same goes for things like fuel calculations, W&B, you name it.

I'm plenty familiar with our 172's performance at sea level in Alaska. But when I was planning my departure from Truckee in the summer, yeah, I actually dug out the book and ran some numbers. Turns out I would need about 1500 feet on a runway that's 7000, which is laughably easy. But it was a regime I'd never taken that particular plane into before, so I wanted to ask. Plus, it was fun to actually watch the runway markers on takeoff and see the calculation come to life for real.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't tell anyone NOT to do calculations and ensure the safety of the flight by checking the numbers in their POH. All I am saying is if you are in doubt of the operation, just don't do it. While it is good to push the envelope of your skills, you can only push so far. When the laws of Physics push back, things get messy in a hurry. If I really NEED to check whether my airplane can do what I want, I really need to take a step back and question what I'm doing. Do I really NEED to go there. Is there somewhere else that's better suited to my aircraft?

Were I a renter flying different aircraft I would be doubly careful. Not only do we have old machines that don't perform according to their POHs, but renters have to content with aircraft that have been serially abused by ham-fisted pilots (in truth my aircraft shares this attribute, but I digress). I would only trust one of those airplanes so far and no farther.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top