Intersection take offs with Encore's Q400

[A321]

I was out at YWG last nite and watched two Encore Q400s take the intersection takeoff at Papa for departure off RWY 18.

My question is..does the Q400 have performance that would make the use of all 11,000ft redundant if a rejected take off was required?

[stickontheice]

Yes they're all equipped with the water methanol kits. First sign of trouble they hit a big red button and whamo they're half way to Grand Forks climbing thru FL180!

[Maxpwr]

.

[Tanker299]

As long as you have your accelerate stop distance your good. After v1 you are not rejecting unless a wing falls off or some other worldly thing happens but then you a test pilot anyway. These are not 703 machines or 172s, they are transport catagory certified to continue the take off on one engine. Airmanship is different in different ops, weather, aircrafts etc. It always evolving and changing.

[mbav8r]

"Airmanship is different in different ops"
Not sure what your definition of airmanship is but for my definition it should be common to all pilots regardless of "op"
Runway behind you, for on time performance does not rise to the level of good airmanship, in my opinion.


Airmanship is:

Effective decision making to support a sequence of actions.

The care and attitude that you bring to the conduct of your flying. It encompasses consideration for your passengers, care of your aircraft, courtesy to other airspace and airfield users, and the self-discipline to prepare and conduct your flights in the most professional manner possible. It is not just flying skill that distinguishes a good pilot; it is his or her standard of airmanship.

[PositiveRate27]

"Airmanship is different in different ops"
Not sure what your definition of airmanship is but for my definition it should be common to all pilots regardless of "op"
Runway behind you, for on time performance does not rise to the level of good airmanship, in my opinion.


Airmanship is:

Effective decision making to support a sequence of actions.

The care and attitude that you bring to the conduct of your flying. It encompasses consideration for your passengers, care of your aircraft, courtesy to other airspace and airfield users, and the self-discipline to prepare and conduct your flights in the most professional manner possible. It is not just flying skill that distinguishes a good pilot; it is his or her standard of airmanship.

Well said, I'll often see encore go off 35L from the C1 intersection in yyc and wonder to myself why anyone would leave the better part of half the runway behind them. Just to save a couple minutes of taxi time that you are being paid for? I guarantee you the company has no problem with you taking an intersection further down, and you dont get a bonus cheque in your mailbox for time saved. Balanced field only works if you perform at the required performance levels. Any extended hesitation, or improper use of brakes and you're going off the end. The brakes on the Q are pretty questionable and it's been my experience in the sim that pilots don't hop on them near as quick or as hard as is required.

It kinda gets back to the old saying, just because you can doesn't mean you should. I guess that's the whole paradox of airmanship...

[Bushmonkey]

Hello all,

First post here, and I frankly have no dog in the fight, but I'm not sure that airmanship enters into the equation. Balanced field requirements for the aircraft and airfield conditions (SR-422B) are the governing math for a decision to take an intersection departure. The Q-400 is quite a performer, and departing off of 35L at C1 gives a takeoff distance of about 6,500'. More than enough to meet the accelerate/stop requirements of the aircraft. It could be effectively argued that a couple of hundred extra feet of runway can provide a good buffer for a less that brisk reaction to a high speed RTO, but the question arises that how much extra runway is superfluous? Once the aircraft has reached V1, all remaining runway after the rotation point is essentially a waste of pavement and unusable, as the aircraft is committed to flight. If the performance numbers issued on a TLR allow a departure from an intersection, the only benefit I can see from using a longer runway length would be the ability to take a larger derate of engine thrust/power that would also meet balanced field requirements as well as 2nd and 3rd segment climb margins.

Clear as mud?

Cheers.

[Bede]

So according to this logic we shouldn't depart rwy 23 in YYZ from H anymore?

[Maxpwr]

.

[mbav8r]

This is the dumbest conversation I've seen in a while. So we're gonna fret because they "leave half the runway behind them", when that runway is 11000' long?! If you had any idea what he Q400 can do you'd be having a laugh along with me and everyone else who flew into and out of the Island with it. I'll say it again, if the Aerodata shows it works then what's the problem? Having said that if there was any contamination in the runway then I wouldn't choose such an aggressive intersection. That's where airmanship comes in. Airmanship does NOT mean taxi your 172 to the end of a 11000' runway just in case. Ridiculous.

Your entire argument actually illustrates my point! I suggest you reevaluate your definition of airmanship!

Airmanship is about choices, choosing to leave the equivalent of YTZ behind you for the sake of a couple minutes is a poor choice. Let's be clear, to me this is not solely an Encore thing, I feel the same when Jazz pilots make the same choice.
V1 Definition

V1 is the Decision speed (sometimes referred to as critical engine speed or critical engine failure speed) by which any decision to reject a takeoff must be made. Above V1, the takeoff must be continued unless there is reason to believe that the aircraft will not fly. An engine failure identified not later than V1 should always result in a rejected takeoff.
V1 is critical on a balanced field so why create yourself a balanced field if you don't have to? A Q took off after a blown tire, during the subsequent landing, the vibration from the blown tire caused the gear to collapse which could have been much worse. I could be wrong but I don't believe manufacturers test V1 for blown tire at the critical moment, I'm saying that on a balanced field you might not be able to stop with less than optimum braking.
Bede,
I've been offered S intersection 35R in YYC many times and turned it down every time, is 12,000 feet enough, sure but imagine a scenario where you have a control malfunction occur at V1 and you attempt to rotate but can't, I'll sure be happy to have that extra 2000 feet at that point. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

[Maxpwr]

.

[mbav8r]

Yes, I'm that guy, on time performance is on my list but it's last, safety is first and I'll always opt for the safest choice.
I'm also the guy that if ATC offers a short final and we're a bit high but we'll have to be vectored behind traffic further out, I'll opt for the vector as opposed to a less than stable approach. Many risk associated with what we do and sure would be safer to stay at the gate but why CHOOSE to add to the risk for operational reasons! To be clear, when you talk about operational reasons, you mean fuel and time, there is no other reason to take shortcuts!

[Maxpwr]

.

[North Shore]

I'm kinda leaning towards mb.. on this.
Since my employer saw fit to put me in the left seat, an inescapable facet to my thinking has been the question: "How's this going to be explained in front of 'K' [the boss] tomorrow morning if things go sideways today?" Tailwind components, and intersections are a part of that...

[Oxi]

what is a less than stable approach? Is that close to parameters? Come on

[mbav8r]

Oxi,
Would you choose a chop and drop, idle thrust configuring for a landing, above the glideslope playing catchup the whole time over a few extra miles and stable?
Maxpwr, I think you think I'm taking it to the extreme, I'm saying things like half the runway behind you for "money" because you can is not displaying good airmanship.
Would you carry on if your APU generator wasn't available? In your above scenario I would most likely carry on, if there was a maintenance base closer, I might opt for that.
A long, long time ago I lost suction for the gyro on one side but the other was still working, my CP wanted me to fly it to a maintenance base at night, I told him under no circumstances will that happen! It was a very heated discussion as he threatened my job if I didn't do it and then hung up on me. Phone rings a few minutes later and he's telling me to have the plane airborne the second the sun comes up, ten minutes into that flight, the other side quits. Up north where this was, on a moonless overcast night, I was a deadman as both attitude indicators toppled before I got there, I lived to tell the story. How many think I went to the extreme?

[mbav8r]

Good read and by the way, if I can safely take the early turn and be stable I will as I said my scenario included that I was high on the approach, respectfully I think those defending this should really think about why they are, its for money and not even your own, it's for the company bottom line. Just a little frost right? It'll fly!
https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/ru ... 1-2015.pdf

"Inevitably safety management resources are finite and must be targeted in ways that offer the greatest opportunities for prevention. During the data period 2010-2014 considered within the following chapters approximately 64% of all recorded accidents occurred in the approach and landing phases of flight, and unstabilized approaches were identified as a factor in 14% of those approach and landing accidents

[Maxpwr]

.

[mbav8r]

You're correct, the frost was off base and geared more towards the unstable approach and where do you draw the line for shortcuts.
Yes I use reduced thrust, that's a company policy and in the COM/AOM and all the takeoff data is calculated using reduced thrust, full length or intersection. It is not company policy to depart from intersections, that's someone choosing to do something that is allowed but not the safest thing to do, not unsafe. My point was simply that leaving that much runway behind you is not displaying airmanship, I don't think the are reckless and irresponsible.
You didn't answer my question, why are you doing it?
Also I would like to say, I've done it in the past and honestly the only reason is on time performance, is that a good enough reason because I think we can agree, the safest thing is full length.

[Maxpwr]

.