Be a Better Pilot

[Mmittal]

Actually a great read. Lots of time spent in typing up this information for dissemination. Now where is that copy paste handout button.

[xysn]

Great post.

Interesting points about intersection takeoffs. I've opted for 3 800' of a 10 000' runway (And used maybe 1 200') and never even considered requesting more (Maybe one more intersection down?) until CpnCrunch pointed the possibility using the remainder for landing in case of efato.

[Rookie50]

Great post.

Interesting points about intersection takeoffs. I've opted for 3 800' of a 10 000' runway (And used maybe 1 200') and never even considered requesting more (Maybe one more intersection down?) until CpnCrunch pointed the possibility using the remainder for landing in case of efato.

Around 5000 or close is my loose rule.

It's common at CYXU to takeoff at the intersection that I believe is almost exactly halfway to either runway, I think it's 8800 ft so that's 4400 per side. Just don't be the dolt that did this and took off the wrong way, into the path of 2 landing aircraft. Oops.

Also I will always take the entire length at a high density altitude airport --- 9000 ft is not overkill during a 30 C takeoff no wind and 5000+ elevation.

[CpnCrunch]

Great post.

Interesting points about intersection takeoffs. I've opted for 3 800' of a 10 000' runway (And used maybe 1 200') and never even considered requesting more (Maybe one more intersection down?) until CpnCrunch pointed the possibility using the remainder for landing in case of efato.

Around 5000 or close is my loose rule.

Yes, I think anything over 5000ft is probably overkill.

[niss]

I prefer to have as much runway in front of me as possible, but I am probably not going to taxi an extra 10+ minutes to avoid an intersection take off halfway down a 5000' Runway when my home airport is 2100'x30'.

[Pop n Fresh]

I used to agree with that when I was flying every week. The big airport tower would ask if 2640' was enough. I would answer, "roger." That seems like half a mile


edit : Removed the part where I suggested he could take off in fifteen hundred feet. Sorry.

Oops. I see the problem. I wrote 1500' instead of 2100'.

My bad. I am pretty clumsy with honglaise.

[niss]

No what I'm saying is that I would prefer to start at the end of the runway and have it all, but I'm not necessarily going to go out of my way for it when halfway is already more than I'm used to.

I'm not going to do an intersection TO that leaves me with less than the 2100' I'm used to.

[Pop n Fresh]

So prefer does not mean you would pick that one?

[niss]

It depends. If the ramp is right by the intersection and getting to the end is by way of Alpha then bravo 1 to charlie blah blah blah then as long as I have that 2100' or more I'll take it.

I would not take an intersection TO at a field that is 3000 or 3500. My magic number is the 2100' I have at home.

[Pop n Fresh]

Um.. Sorry, I'm still not following.

Do you want the intersection or would you prefer as much runway in front of you as possible?

[niss]

I would prefer as much runway as possible and therefor will usually go to the ends but I may opt to take an intersection as long as the runway remaining is not less than 2100'. I drew this line because that is how much runway I am used to at home.

[Pop n Fresh]

Given the option tomorrow I might taxi the extra right to the end. If it's warm enough to be doing density altitude calculations I'm going all the way for sure.

If something goes wonky with the engine during or just after take off I can just relax with the remaining 4+ of the runway to go back to.

Pretty sure if I was flying more I would go back to being comfy with 1500' or more. It's dumb but I never claim to be smart.

[New_PIC]

On my first solo, the wind happened to have set the active runway to one I was less familiar with. When I stopped and reported at the line, the FSS asked if I would be doing an intersection take off, making it sound like that was common and expected. I had heard of and seen intersection take offs but had not done one from that intersection and didn't recall noticing one from there before either. I hesitated but just wasn't sure and declined, advising them that I'd be doing a full backtrack.

I've since taken off from that intersection lots of times but still remember being very aware that, at the time, I had not actually calculated the distances needed, or available from there. A little concern or nervousness really helps drive a lesson home.

More to the current point, there was the time my instructor had me try to turn back to the runway with a simulated engine failure on take off. We climbed straight out to 1000 feet and then he cut the throttle back. 1000 feet is lots of altitude but two big guys in a fully fuelled trainer cover a fair distance getting up there on a warm day so it was still a long glide back. I made the runway, just barely, but part of that was because we took off in about the first quarter of a 6000 ft runway.

[Rookie50]

New,

The larger lesson is -- when ATC "encourages" or requests you to accept an instruction you or your airplane is not comfortable with -- never accept just to fit in -- even if everyone else is doing it. There are lots of scenarios.

[Collidingwiththesky]

Thanks for the original post. Lots of good info!

[digits_]

The big airport tower would ask if 2640' was enough. I would answer, "roger." That seems like half a mile

So why didn't you answer his question ?

"Roger" is a reply that means you understood the transmission. "Affirm" or "negative" would be two possible answers to the question.

Might be an important distinction some day.

[Pop n Fresh]

Ignorance I suppose. I don't remember for certain but I think it was pretty much acceptable to ATC at the time.

Edit: after reading a bit of that radio phraseology document from the UK I never would have thought to shorten "Affirmative".

"Affirm" Sounds like I'm asking you to tell me you are sure of something you just said.

[pelmet]

Great post.

Interesting points about intersection takeoffs. I've opted for 3 800' of a 10 000' runway (And used maybe 1 200') and never even considered requesting more (Maybe one more intersection down?) until CpnCrunch pointed the possibility using the remainder for landing in case of efato.

The problem is that some have the idea that they must never leave any runway behind them and then it starts to become ridiculous as the runways get longer. If you are in a light aircraft, I rally don't think you need full length on a 10,000 foot runway and taxi forever. Yet the person who might actually do this won't hesitate to use a 2400' runway. Be reasonable. I was in Chicago the other day and 28R is in use at 13000 feet long. A lot of airliners are using the CC taxiway intersection takeoff about 3000' down the runway including a 747. Would you insist on taxiing all the way down for a full length takeoff.

I can see an argument for wanting to start with enough runway to be able to turn around and land the opposite direction in the event of an engine failure if it is the only runway or be high enough to be able to turn and land on another runway.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The problem is that some have the idea that they must never leave any runway behind them and then it starts to become ridiculous as the runways get longer. If you are in a light aircraft, I rally don't think you need full length on a 10,000 foot runway and taxi forever. Yet the person who might actually do this won't hesitate to use a 2400' runway. Be reasonable.

There are not many runways 10,000 feet long, but there are many that are 5000 ft long. Most of those have a mid field intersection. I see people taking off from those intersections all the time and personally I think that is foolish. Taxing down to the end only takes a few minutes and IMO the extra options that using the full length gives you is worth the extra time.

For the 10,000 footers than yes I agree. A mid field intersection take off is a reasonable compromise.

[Pop n Fresh]

This is probably not funny but I think it's lightly humorous.

I took my private out at YBW spring bank and then flew out of YYC for a while. When I returned to YBW they had extended one of the runways. One day I was taxiing to the run up area but instinctively went to turn to the old one. The instructor who may not have been born back when I started flight training explained in nearly a Mayday tone. "Runway behind us won't do you any good."

I acknowledged that it was prudent to take the whole runway but.. Sorry if I can't get frightened, I've just become jaded taking off hundreds of times from that spot when it was all of the available runway.

[LousyFisherman]

There are not many runways 10,000 feet long, but there are many that are 5000 ft long. Most of those have a mid field intersection. I see people taking off from those intersections all the time and personally I think that is foolish. Taxing down to the end only takes a few minutes and IMO the extra options that using the full length gives you is worth the extra time.
For the 10,000 footers than yes I agree. A mid field intersection take off is a reasonable compromise.

And so we agree :0. I would not choose an intersection takeoff with only 5000' total. And just to prove that it all depends. Cranbrook, -19, and I taxied all the way down to the end because I wanted to guarantee the engine was as warm as possible. I was off the ground about 200 feet before the intersection. Don't really understand why they paved the other 2/3 of the runway Oh, I might have wanted an even longer taxi if it was even colder? I understand now

LF

[stol701]

I seem to see this more and more now and cannot remember if its in a POH or not. It is putting the flaps down to full during the walk around, particularly in the winter. Checking the tracks and pins can be done without this and can be done with the engine on. Thoughts?

this is to check if the flaps are too tight when extended. They need to be loose. Otherwise they may get extended but if the electrical power is just not enough you may not be able to put them up again (if you need to).


A site that is full of good advice (for Cessna 150/172 flyers and instructors): http://www.whittsflying.com… not the best formatting but if you excuse that then it's great.

And this one: http://www.av8n.com/how/

[pianokeys]

Big Pistons, this is an excellent post. I really liked reading it, and as cheesy as it sounds, it speaks to me as I am a student, and I'll definitely take these lessons and pointers with me.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I got asked about some tips for new PPL. I pointed him towards this post which has prompted me to bump it up.

As always my advice represents one data points worth of personal opinions and is meant to offer some ideas to think about the next time you go flying.

Constructive additions to this thread are always welcome.

[JungianJugular]

This is awesome! Thanks!