Intersection departures

[VH-XXX]

I witnessed an intersection departure a couple of weeks ago. It was in a seemingly underpowered C172 with 2 POB. The wind was highly variable at the time, it was medium temperature and the aircraft lifted off with 50 metres to spare at best. The last time I saw someone try the same thing in the same type of aircraft on the same runway they ran off the end and into the ditch. He is now dead from an unrelated aviation stupidity.

It was questionable decision to say the least (the one two weeks ago).

But.... How do you tell the pilot that he shouldn't have done what he just did without fear of him retaliating with a barrage of abuse? Keeping in mind that he has not committed any kind of offence.

The previous time that I did advise a pilot that his intersection departure from the exact same runway was ill-advised, he called up later and abused me by saying that I was too stupid to realize that his Bonanza was actually fitted with an io550 and not just an io540 and that it is capable or lifting off in 243 metres, although in the day he took 420 approx.

That pilot is now also dead after an act of aviation stupidity. (This wasn't the point of the thread, I just realized this as I was writing this)

Discuss.

What have you done in a similar situation?

[no_one]

Assuming your what thoughts on how to handle the situation and not on the specific wisdom of an intersection departure then;

1. If someone makes a mistake and knows they made a mistake, then you don't need to say anything. The scare that they gave themselves will be enough to change their future behaviour. Learning by making little mistakes is ok. This pilot in the 172 will hopefully remember this lesson when they are left seat in an A380 15 years from now.

2. If someone is not aware of what is happening around them enough to realise what they did was dangerous then a quiet chat from someone they respect is on order. A public chastisement will only lead to indignation and resentment.

3. If someone is too cocky to realise what they did was dangerous, only real options are official sanction or peer pressure.

The hard part is to pick the why so you know which approach to adopt.

[Hempy]

Take the Warning labels off everything and let Darwin decide imho

i.e xxx he's probably too stupid to try and educate, I wouldn't bother.

[dubbleyew eight]

XXX why don't you just mind your own business?

[Di_Vosh]

What have you done in a similar situation?

Nothing!

I learned many years ago that it wasn't my duty to tell adults how not to be stupid. In very general terms, if someone hasn't learned what is or isn't a dangerous or life threatening action by the age of 25 or so then they're unlikely to learn from anything that I'm about to tell them. *

Similar for many other aspects of life. If you see someone driving like a F:mad:kwit, do you pull up at the next traffic lights and inform them of the dangers of their actions? And if so, is your advice taken positively?

To play Devils Advocate:

what appears to be a dangerous action from my POV may not be dangerous at all, due to any number of things of which I may not be aware.

Late last year we were approaching Devonport at around last light. A jabiru heard us on CTAF and said that he was about to line up on runway 32 and that he'd wait for us to land before he departed. (All nice and good so far). During the landing roll on runway 24, we noticed that we couldn't see him on 32. He then departed and we could barely see him as it was dark by now. This bloke took off from an unlit runway and had no lights on his Jabiru. The Captain got on the radio and asked him wtf? His reply was "No problems, I'm only going around 5 k's."

From my Point of view, here is a guy risking his life flying an unlit aircraft. Taking off from an unlit runway, flying to an unlit airfield after last light when he could just have driven his car there in around 15 minutes. Sheer and utter stupidity! If he can't appreciate the danger that should be obvious to anyone, then nothing I'm about to say will make any difference.

But... he may have had NVG's, had SpecOps training (any military Porter drivers would know what I'm talking about), may have had lighting at his airfield, may have not put his lights on for some reason, etc.

DIVOSH!

*(I don't always follow my own advice :ouch:)

[kimwestt]

Na - I reckon it's everybody's busines that has the safety and reputation of fellow aviators at heart.
Like others on this site, I witnessed a downwind and intersection departure (20 kts+), short rwy, in a loaded to the gills 210. Mid Northern coastal WA area.
Talk about a prize f..wit, the only saving grace was that the load was freight.
Talk about not being able to believe yer eyes!!
Yeah, I'd have given the driver an earful, and followed it up if he/she got smart about it.
:eek:

[garrya100]

So instead of accepting a intersection G departure from 16R at YSSY which would give you 2800+ meters you would prefer the full 3962m?

I know this is an extreme example, but sometimes an intersection departure is not a problem

It's up to you to use your piloting skills to see if it will work for you.

The chart for my A/C says I need 450m ground roll for max weight at 5000ft and 25 degrees. I personally want 1000m for the same conditions. If an intersection departure meets that personal requirement I will consider it, if it doesn't I won't.

[Capt Fathom]

Maybe it's something the pilot has done before, without difficulty, but has been caught out on this day by the conditions. Something they neglected to consider.

Probably had the bejesus scared out of them and learnt a valuable lesson! That's just another view.

Hands up those who haven't done something stupid in an aeroplane and thought afterwards, that was a bit close!

[5th officer]

Fully agree with KW, CRM is the art of letting people (anyone involved in Aviation) know they may have made a Balls of it, whether they choose to listen to you is not your problem and who knows, when he does stuff up a I.D. you can have a good chuckle.

[Checkboard]

You either trust the performance numbers, or you don't. If the numbers say you can go - then off you go, intersection or not. :8

[VH-XXX]

XXX why don't you just mind your own business?

Because these tossers often take innocent people with them. Next time you are first on scene and the pilot is burning alive in the wreck you might think otherwise.


Good feedback gents, seems my thoughts on this are shared amongst others.

Subsequent discussions have now resulted in intersection departures being banned by the airport owner. Enforcing that would be the next step.

Common sense would be the best thing but there's not a lot left these days.

[Capn Bloggs]

Similar for many other aspects of life. If you see someone driving like a Fkwit, do you pull up at the next traffic lights and inform them of the dangers of their actions? And if so, is your advice taken positively?

Depends on whether you're going to get your head beaten-in car smashed up. But remember: if you do nothing, that idiot might kill your missus or daughter/son.

I don't have any compunction blasting some moron who is on their phone, foot still firmly on the brake, when everybody has gone on a green light. D!ickheads. Just maybe they'll think twice next time before tapping when they should be looking out, avoiding an accident.

[Wally Mk2]

How a pilot operates a plane has many variables. COST is one of them especially if yr hiring the machine, time is money so an intersection dep is purely to get going & not waste $$$.
I was told back in the early days by a few instructors that think about the terrain ahead immediately after leaving the confines of the airfield when deciding how much rwy to use. Plenty of open flattish area's take off with adequate rwy on the day to suit the conditions, built up area ahead & zero places to land after T/off go right down to the end of the rwy & even stick ya tail over the barbwire fence as that old saying applies here, the rwy behind you is useless in the event of an engine failure!

The use of common sense has been overtaken by $$$$ in all walks of life especially aviation, we all live by the might dollar & we can die by it to.


Wmk2

[DH164]

While the situation you describe does sound quite close to comfort I seem to share Di Voshs train of thought. Do nothing, you dont know who is in the other aeroplane, their credentials, abilities, local knowledge, reasons for doing so etc. You said it yourself, he has not broken the law. Personally I take intersection departures all the time as well as a bit if tailwind if it suits me. If anyone decided to shove their conservative views in my face I'd tell them to get nodded. For everyone that does everything according to OWT's I think it's good that some people think for themselves and operate with a bit of flexibility. Again the story described does sound like pushing it though.


in an Arrow and got offered an intersection departure off runway 23 to put me ahead of a Fokker and a 737 who were taxiing ahead of me, would have had 1000+ TORA, but declined

Private Op I hope.

[VH-XXX]

VH-XXX your a tool I suppose every time you take off out of YMMB you refer to your AAM ! You probably don't even know what that means but iam sure you will google it and have a go back at me you armature !

Thanks mate, hope I run into you some day, not literally.



Wally, I suspect you are right about the $$$. Heard a guy telling a tower a few years back he was paying $8 a minute and could they speed things up a bit!

Other than perceived time and $$$ reasoning, there aren't many reasons to even conduct an intersexual departure.

[Munz]

"VH-XXX you're a tool, I suppose every time you take off out of YMMB you refer to your AAM ! You probably don't even know what that means, but I am sure you will google it and have a go back at me you amateur."

he's just trying to give you advice on how not to wind up in the ground. calm down.

Treat every flight as if the aircraft is trying to kill you.

[6317alan]

There are three thing you are unable to use when you are flying, Runway behind you, Fuel in the bowser and the last ten seconds!

[deadcut]

That's not how the quote goes alan. Lets settle down mate.

[VH-FTS]

Dunno about advising other people but the club I fly with has it in their Ops manual that all intersection departures are forbidden.

Subsequent discussions have now resulted in intersection departures being banned by the airport owner. Enforcing that would be the next step.

While the pilot described in the opening post sounds like a moron, people making decisions described in the quotes above are no better educated.

What the heck's wrong with finding out the take off distance available from an intersection, and comparing it to the take off distance you require for the conditions? Add in a bit of common sense by thinking about 'escape procedures' or landing spots if the engine quits and there is not usually added risk by accepting an intersection.

Those arguing they want to land on the remaining runway need to have a good think about the maths involved. Consider your take off roll, climb to XXXft then attempt to land back on the runway, there is a good chance you won't have enough runway left unless you've got a very long regional or capital city runway.

Use some judgement people - don't just make blanket decisions or policies such as 'never conduct an intersection departure'.

[Fizzyone]

Xxx
Maybe you should let us all know the airport your talking about so we don't incur your wrath

[airwolf117]

I think an intersection is perfectly safe. In the Torres Strait we Cherokee Sixes and C182's are operated on 450m strips on a regular basis, at MTOW and occasions (eugh) with minimal wind.

It can be done safely. Depends on the aircraft, pilot and conditions, but I see nothing wrong with it as a general rule.

[dubbleyew eight]

intersection departures being banned by the airport owner. Enforcing that would be the next step.

the rules state that it is the pilot's discretion. stop being wan***s.

[A37575]

I sympathise with VH-XXX. For example, the chief pilot of a Derby based operator interviewed a new (but experienced) pilot for a job then took him flying in a Cessna 310 to see if he could fly. At 50-100 ft after take off, the chief pilot cut a mixture control and told the new pilot to land ahead single engine on the remaining length. They just made it. A few days later same bloke did same act using an Islander. A visiting RPT aircraft saw it and also saw the Islander go into the over-run. The same chief pilot later joined CASA as an FOI.

Similar thing happened to a Duchess at Camden when the ATO cut a mixture on lift off during on a night touch and go. The aircraft clipped tree tops, lost airspeed and finished up on its guts through a wire fence where it hit an iron girder in long grass. The Duchess caught fire and both pilots suffered extensive burns. The ATO died of burns shortly after.

There used to be an old saying about flying. "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots - but not many old, bold pilots."

[Shagpile]

I believe the quote is actually:

"Three most useless things in aviation - Sky above you, Runway behind you and hours in a navigators logbook".


I don't agree with the 'fuel in bowser' being useless one. When you are in a large aircraft on 1.3% climb gradient on 3 engines on departure, you wish you had left more fuel back in the tanker.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Not troo No 6....

I HAVE used the 'last 10 seconds'.....and I'm still here.....

:ok:

[Buttscratcher]

Hi XXX
ATC: "$8.00 a minute, eh....ok then give me 100 bucks worth, and I'll get back to you"

[training wheels]

Quite common to see Juliet intersection departures at YMML's runway 34 when there's a strong northerly blowing and I think Qlink's Dash8's even use the highspeed taxiway intersection (Foxtrot) as well.

I remember back when I used to fly at YMMB, some requests for intersection departures were so that you can jump ahead of the queue whilst number 1 and 2 ahead were still taxing for the full length.

As others have said, as long as you're within the performance limitations of your aircraft, then I don't see why not. Can anyone ever recall an incident where there's been an engine failure after take-off and the aircraft has successfully landed back on the remaining available runway?

[Di_Vosh]

Training Wheels,

Good point.

Foxtrot or Golf for RWY 16/34 is common in the Dash's and Saabs that operate out of Melbourne. Also common for 737's (sometimes 767's) to use Echo for a 16 take-off.

With a light load and strong headwinds, I've even used an Echo departure for RWY34 at Melbourne in the Dash :ooh:

Allowing aircraft at Melbourne or Sydney to use intersection departures reduces congestion and taxi times.

Of course this is at an airline level, and (I'm guessing) not the intent of the OP. However, any pilot should have a very good idea of the TODR for a given take-off, given the ambient conditions, a/c weight, etc. If an intersection departure allows for a safe departure, I can't see the problem.

DIVOSH!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

This is a pointless thread IMO - well meaning but pointless, none-the-less!

I think the intention of the OP was GA, not airline ops, so lets stick to that.

You cannot make rules for every possible aspects of GA ops. As I see it, safe flying involves a mix of good training, piloting skills, risk management and decision making. That's what makes a pilot rather than a "plane driver".

I generally use the full runway length when available (risk management), but have no hesitation making an intersection departure when it suits and the parameters are OK. Heck, I have even been known to TO or land downwind on occasions as well.

Its a bit hard for me to justify knocking back an intersection departure from a major runway with X000+ M still available and then flying off to land and depart from a 600M grass strip.

I once knocked back an intersection departure from the holding point at Mackay which was offered to me because a Dash 8 was backtracking to the end of the runway. The controller pointed out that I still had X000M available and waiting for the Dash 8 to depart would trigger a mandatory hold due wake turbulence. I quickly did a risk management reassessment and off I went. :)

You can ban one way that pilots get themselves and their pax into trouble - that only leave 1,426,315 minus 1 otherways.

Dr :8

[Wally Mk2]

Now come on 'Forky' nothing is 'pointless' when it comes to aviation & the operating of an A/C of any type. :) There's a saying......there are no dumb questions about flying when your airborne!:)
Sure as usual the thread has drifted off somewhat with some now ref to larger safer airframes etc but that's the very nature on any forum people are curious, interested & at times get a little excited so if just one aviator out there stops & thinks just a little about his judgement of taking off from less than full rwy length for whatever reason then great I'm all for diversification on any subject, Mods excluded of course:E



Wmk2

[VH-XXX]

It is abundantly clear FTDK that you are an ambassador of natural selection :ok:

[Flying Binghi]

...an ambassador of natural selection...

I woulda thought in this case more an ambassador of common sense..;)

Wally Mk2 has got it covered...

...was told back in the early days by a few instructors that think about the terrain ahead immediately after leaving the confines of the airfield when deciding how much rwy to use. Plenty of open flattish area's take off with adequate rwy on the day to suit the conditions, built up area ahead & zero places to land after T/off go right down to the end of the rwy...











.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

It is abundantly clear FTDK that you are an ambassador of natural selection :ok:

You can't legislate against stupidity! :ok:

[Flying Binghi]

You can't legislate against stupidity

Tis a shame. Just think if we could there would be no more Labor or Greens..;)









.

[VH-XXX]

Finally FB and I agree on something :ok:

[Ultralights]

seams everyone has forgotten the magic A word.... Airmanship..

and Situational awareness.
a 3000mtr runway, and i only need 100, no problem with intersections, a 1000mtr runway surrounded by suburbia, no intersection. 700 mtr surrounded by open fields and floodplains, again, no problem with an intersection departure. and the same with the situation described by forkie.

[LeadSled]

Belmontboy,
I'll bite, whats an AAM ???
I've got an AFM and a AIM, and an AIP, but AAM??

Subsequent discussions have now resulted in intersection departures being banned by the airport owner. Enforcing that would be the next step.

Well, well!! The good old Australian answer to everything --- think up another seriously dumb "rule", and enforce it.

I wonder just what rule making and enforcement powers the airport operator thinks they have, unless it is a privately owned (not a public airport) and the owner bans anybody they don't like --- which is not "enforcing a rule".

Wake up, folks, we have enough rules already, let's leave it to the pilot in command (who has the legal power) to make a decision, based on the aircraft on the day, the conditions and the circumstances. That you, under (assumed) identical circumstances, think you would have made a different decision, does not make your decision right.

One of the biggest problems with the Australian "rules" is that they try to make, to a ridiculous extent, one size fits all --- unlike relevant elsewheres, with aviation "rules" graded to the circumstances---- and to great degree this thread shows where the ideas come from!! After all, people who work fro CASA largely come out of the aviation community.

Ultrlights has got the right/Wright idea, use you brains.

Tootle pip!!

[VH-XXX]

Well, well!! The good old Australian answer to everything --- think up another seriously dumb "rule", and enforce it.

You are on fire this week LS.

If the owner of an airport says that no yellow or red aircraft are allowed to land there, then so be it, he can do what he wants.

If he's sick of people running off the end of his runway and attracting attention to his airport, then so be it.

The thread was started about someone being a tool and what to say to him about it... not Australia being a nanny state.

I might add that there are associated noise issues in regards to intersection departures at some airports and this is also a contributing factor here.

[LeadSled]

If the owner of an airport says that no yellow or red aircraft are allowed to land there, then so be it, he can do what he wants.

If he's sick of people running off the end of his runway and attracting attention to his airport, then so be it.

XXX,
Not if it is a public use airport.

As I said in a previous post, only if it is a privately owned airfield/airport that is, effectively, PPO, can an owner discriminate. on who uses the facility --- there are quite a few of those.

This comes up all the time with "enforceable" noise limitations that have no legal basis, unfortunately they are seldom challenged by airport users.

An example of the above is purported limitations on night circuits at YSBK, those who have defied BAL edicts have no been proceeded against by BAL, because BAL has no head of power (under the terms of the lease from the Commonwealth) to enforce such limitations (discrimination) that are otherwise legal operations.

If the DoIT (or whatever it is called now) promulgate restrictions under one of the various pieces of legislation they have to work with, that's a different matter.

I am aware (and, before you ask, no, I am not going to go into detail) of several cases of airport leaseholders (both ALOP and Cth Lease) who have approached DoIT to promulgate "additional limitations" ( as do various anti-airport groups, ad nauseum ad infinitum) but I know of no case where DoIT have done so.

We have had council owned airports that are not ALOP, just council owned, who have banned categories of aircraft, usually "Ultralights", where this has been challenged, the challenge has been upheld.

What would be the reaction if a local council decided to ban, say, all V8 powered cars from its council roads?? Why is the local aerodrome any different ---- in law ---- which is where it all ends.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Leadie, what do you think about an aerodrome operator at a major capital city secondary airport who charges a 'penalty fee per circuit' of $20 for aircraft who do circuits after 6 pm local on weekends, under the guise of enforcing 'good neighbourhood' policy?

With our 'normal summer' and Last Light, there is a period of almost 2 hours of good flying time around December....

Opinion please...?
:ok:

[Aeromuz]

JAH are thieving pr!cks....that's my opinion for what it's worth.

[LeadSled]

Griggo,
The problem is, usually, that small operators do not have the financial capacity to challenge the airfield owners.
With an adequate legal challenge,I believe that one would not stand up.
Most night circuits are done for some regulatory purpose, not just for fun, a discriminatory charge by a public use airport, levied against somebody fulfilling a regulatory requirement, makes for an interesting argument.
If you are talking about a capital city secondary airport, at least nominally, the terms of the lease are on the night circuit flyers side.

[Oktas8]

I wonder if it would be different if they charged (x+20) dollars for all circuits, but offered a goodwill processing discount of $20 for all circuits done in daylight hours?

Right, I'm off to become an accountant. Giving up day job..... NOW. :\