Do you always backtrack to take off?

[AeroDiaz]

How about if you were departing from Harare in Zimbabwe in a Super Cub where the runway is fifteen thousand feet long how many of you would taxi to the end to take off?

I would.

[Cat Driver]

is it +60, barometer bottemed out, with full fuel, 2 goat carcasses and a 255 lb national geographic photographer in the back seat?...lol

No it is +30 C and you are by yourself with a load of automatic weapons you are delivering to the DRC and the airplane is at its legal all up weight.

Any self respecting mercenary knows enough to stay within legal weight limits.

[ahramin]

I will usually use the full length, with many exceptions though:

In a twin turboprop anything over 5000' is not going to make any difference so I will take an intersection departure.

In my single piston anything over 3500' see above.

[square]

Usually yeah. Gives the beasty boys a chance to warm up, gives me enough room to do a reject, clocks another 0.1 now and then so there's little downside. If I've got tons of room off an intersection I'll take it though, I figure even 4000' gives me enough room to takeoff, set climb power (where the majority of engine failures tend to happen -- first power reduction) then land again. Anything under that though I'll wait for a safe altitude to make my first reduction.

[ex-NWT]

The only thing a backtrack does is increase the deration while putting on too much extra stress on the gear.
We also need more than 45mtr for the turn.
If it is calculated, no sense burning the extra rubber.

[xsbank]

Always.

[trey kule]

I have to agree with both Lurch and Cat, as they say essentially the same thing

Slavish adherence to the safety mantra can easily replace common sense and thinking. It also assumes , for the most part, from the posters here, that we are talking only of single engine aircraft. Cat, I think , put it best.

A wise pilot who many years ago who taught me float flying,( which unlike the wheeled stuff, is more of an art and skill when it comes to takeoff distances). He told me to taxi back until I thought I had the right amount needed, than taxi that much again. Told me I would never get into trouble if I did that. Seems he was right. Now we get the mantra of use all available, every time, even if it means a ten minute downwind taxi on a hot day..Shucks those little piston engines dont need cooling. Excluding the numbers planes (ie Heavy) and the ones that the magic boxes calculate the distance for you, cant anyone flying small planes anymore look at a runway and the other conditions and make a determination?
It boggles my mind. At the risk of being labelled foolhardy, there are just times when it doesnt make sense to use all the available runway . And I have made over 10k of takeoffs in my career without a problem.

As to KAG..Three engine failures!...on takeoff!....If it was me I would be giving some deep thought to the why , and making some changes to who I fly for or maybe even give some thought to being to unlucky to fly. Only other people I have heard of having that many engine failures on take off were either 30k hour pilots or 300 hr insturctors b.s ing.

[KAG]

All 3 were as a student at the school that had questionable cold weather practices and MTCE. My First was at 7 hours pre solo, second was solo before I held a PPL -those 2 were due to induction ice sliding into carb at takeoff. School procedures then called for MTCE to check the induction hose after each snow storm (the school lacked proper engine covers). Third was on a solo Xcntry at 150 hours with a plane that burned a liter of oil an hour (MTCE said it was ok to fly despite our complaints), it ate itself at 2000' on takeoff from YHZ. I did a 180 and landed without issue. The second one could really have been ugly if I had of done an intersection Takeoff.

When flying twins with lots of power I usually did intersection takeoffs as I wasn't concerned with landing straight ahead.

I think you can now see why when it comes to single pistons I always backtrack

[canwhitewolf]

dltd

[trey kule]

canwhitewolf..

Well, your post got me from zero to rant line in about 1 sec.

So lets see.
runway in front of you $1000 a foot (in the right cricumstances)
Fuel in the tank $1000 a litre (in the right circumstances)
Altitude below you $1000 a foot (in the right circumstances)

The ability to think so that you dont have to shell out for any of the above...priceless.

It is this type of "one second wisdoms" that is the danger here. Means you can realy , on small aircraft no have to concern yourself with estimating how much runway you will need and doing a quick analysis..just use it all.
Means you really can almost stop paying attention to runway surface condition, wind, temp, weight...hell we're safe.
We're usuing all the runway. You can even, as lurch admits ot, try and takeoff in a plane we know isnt funcitoning properly....long as we have lots of runway. And if you tie up traffic at the airport, overheat the engine by a prolonged taxi...well its all about safety. Who could argue with that?

Lurch

I think you can now see why when it comes to single pistons I always backtrack

Did I understand this correctly? You flew a plane that you knew was pretty much unairworthy, and proved your assessmnet correctly, and after one engine failure due to the induction air being jammed with ice or snow, you did it again......and the lesson you learned was to always use all the runway available.....?
How about dont fly an airplane that is not airworthy? How about if you are aware there is a problem with the induction system filling up with snow (after the first time), you either check it out , have someone check it out, or dont fly the plane.
I guess on the plus side there are probably some operators out there who would love to hire you. Pilots that are willing to fly unairworthy aircraft if they can just have lots of runway are in demand as we keep losing them from the pool.
To use the old Cats words of wisdom...understand when to say no.

(I dont know how to make one of those little facie things so you can take all the above as tongue i cheek). I realize you were just a new pilot at the time.

[canwhitewolf]

dltd

[Cat Driver]

We seem to be wandering in the wilderness of ignorance here so once agan please allow me to answer this question for you.

There is only one proper answer.

Use all the runway you are 100% positive will allow you the best options in the event your engine quits based on all circumstances for that airport and conditions..

And to make it bullet proof I will add...::

based on the the airplane you are flying.

[Lurch]

You can even, as lurch admits ot, try and takeoff in a plane we know isnt funcitoning properly....long as we have lots of runway. And if you tie up traffic at the airport, overheat the engine by a prolonged taxi...well its all about safety. Who could argue with that?

Lurch

I think you can now see why when it comes to single pistons I always backtrack

Did I understand this correctly? You flew a plane that you knew was pretty much unairworthy, and proved your assessmnet correctly, and after one engine failure due to the induction air being jammed with ice or snow, you did it again......and the lesson you learned was to always use all the runway available.....?
How about dont fly an airplane that is not airworthy? How about if you are aware there is a problem with the induction system filling up with snow (after the first time), you either check it out , have someone check it out, or dont fly the plane.
I guess on the plus side there are probably some operators out there who would love to hire you. Pilots that are willing to fly unairworthy aircraft if they can just have lots of runway are in demand as we keep losing them from the pool.
To use the old Cats words of wisdom...understand when to say no.

(I dont know how to make one of those little facie things so you can take all the above as tongue i cheek). I realize you were just a new pilot at the time.

Hey Trey watch that quote function, I didn't say any of those things, don't put other peoples words in my mouth.

Lurch

[KAG]

Trey... No you did not read this correctly, or maybe I did not explain myself clear enough.

For a little background on my failures and on the Piper Cherokee, the induction hose is in the front surrounding the landing light. In an east coast warm front you get snow, rain and sudden drop in temp afterward. The planes were parked into wind (as they should be) but snow accumulating around/in the air filter. It then thaws slowly and drips into the induction hose, then freezes as the OAT drops. It does not show up in a walk around (filter is clear of snow/ice), nor a run up. But ifs there’s ice in the induction hose it certainly shows up on takeoff, on the first take off. These occurred on the first flights after snow storms. After 2 of us had failures within minutes of each other, the school adopted a new policy of getting the engineers to open the cowls, and remove the hoses to check for ice. After that there was never a problem.

As for my third failure, the engine was on condition and while we (the students) were asking daily about the oil consumption, we were assured the engine was within it’s limits. I leanred a valuable lesson here.

For the record, during my career I’ve been very aware of the state of my planes, and refused to fly planes I’ve felt were unsafe. I wouldn’t be here 15 years later if I hadn’t.

I have to ask, what type of crap plane were you flying if the engine would overheat taxiing?


For anyone who argues against back tracking ask yourselves this; What do you think the conversation would be like if you killed yourself during a engine failure on Takeoff and left 3000’ behind you? I can only imagine what some arm chair QB’s would be saying on this very board…How would the TSB report read?

[Hedley]

I like answering a question with another question

Let's say you're taxiing out in a 172 from the ramp, which
has a single intersection leading to the middle of a runway
which is 100 nautical miles long. No typo. The runway just
happens to be 100 nm * 6,000 ft/nm = 600,000 feet long.

Now, would everyone here backtrack the 50 miles (300,000
feet) to the threshold of the 100 mile-long runway?

If not, why not?

I know what I would do - I would do an intersection takeoff
on the remaining 50 miles (300,000 feet) of runway from
the mid-point.

Would it be careless or reckless of me, to take off on a runway
which is only 50 miles long, when there is a 100 mile long runway
available? Would another charge under CAR 602.01 be advisable?

[KAG]

I'll answer your question with another question
How many feet would it take to get that 172 airborne with only 1500 RPM?

Personally in your example, I'd fly down to the button, and do a proper take off.

[trey kule]

lurch, my apologies. I see now that it was KAG.

My vision is fine.

My attention to the details on this thread obviously was not.

My blood pressure is fine. 125/78 a month ago at age 59

And I have 42 years and many many thousands of hours of accident free flying. And still do it quite well 14 days a month.

And I still think common sense and the ability to think is better than the absolutisms being spouted by some.
Cat defined it. Hedley stated the logic.
And I, in my sublte, delciate way, tried to get the point across to think not just accept the great wisdoms spouted out at flight school.

[foxmoth]

Yabut Hedley

Your scene garantees an engine failure from fuel starvation before you reach the far end of the runway.

(unless you fly for max range immediate after lift off)

[Benwa]

I'll answer your question with another question
How many feet would it take to get that 172 airborne with only 1500 RPM?

My guess, ZERO.

Why would you continue takeoff if RPM drops below 2200 RPM ?

[niss]

So if there is obviously no safety concerns with me taking off of a 2100' runway @ home, why would I need to taxi the full Mile to use double the rwy?

[iflyforpie]

So if there is obviously no safety concerns with me taking off of a 2100' runway @ home, why would I need to taxi the full Mile to use double the rwy?

It is trying to reducing risk in as many ways as we can. 2100 feet means that between lift off and 500 feet, you don't have very many options for an on-field landing in the event of an engine failure. Using a full 6000 foot runway might change that window to 200 feet (land straight ahead) to 500 feet. If you fly between a 2100 foot strip and a 6000 foot strip and backtrack every time, you are reducing the risk on half of your takeoffs.


With risks, we decide to take them (or proceed in ignorance of them) or find other options.

[CLguy]

Remember all the obstacles in front of you and all the runway behind you will never do you any good!

Go ahead, roll the dice!!

[ndt]

To throw another question out there for float pilots (a variation of Hedley question), when departing from Lake Superior (realistically if lake was 5 mile diameter), would you taxi to the other end of the lake for take-off. If there is a vote, I go with Cat's statement.

[AOW]

My simple answer, No.

Here's a scenario for you:
Gravel runway, 3500' long, Northwestern Ontario. Taxiway is 200' from threshold. Do you backtrack that 200', turn around, kick up a load of gravel, feed some to the Pratts, and go; OR do an intersection takeoff, rolling around the corner, already as fast or faster than you would have been had you back tracked, and with a lot less damage from the gravel.

(I think my opinion is hidden somewhere in that description...)

[trey kule]

the point I was trying to make, and I think some of the others also, is to think. Here is a scenario

Your plane typically takes off in 1000 feet. Weight/temps etc. remain constant
You have a 4000 foot runway which slopes a bit. Nice flat fields at one end and a mountain and hills at the other.
The entry point is exactly half way.

On day one, the wind is 15kts straight down the lower end (with the field at that end). Do you really need to backtrack?
You have lots of room, The wind is going to decrease you takeoff roll, It is sloped down, and you have a nice flat field to land in if something goes wrong.
On day two, the wind is 5 kts from the higher end (with the mountain and hills). You are taking off upslope in a light wind and dont have a great deal of options for landing if something goes wrong. Makes sense to do the backtrack.

It really is all about thinking a bit. Forget to think a bit and plan your takeoff accordingly, and you are asking for trouble, but on the other hand, slavishly backtracking in many instances simply does not make common sense.

It seems impossible for some to break the mantra of flight school safety and think.

I really liked the Lake Superior example..Float pilots have to make those type of decisions all the time. Also the post regarding picking up FOD and beating up props. Good examples from people that can think.