Intersection Departures

[kpnagidi]

Perhaps a self-evident question but here goes; quoting from Doc 7030 (EUR):

"6.5.2 Intersection take-off

6.5.2.1 An aircraft may be cleared to depart from a published intersection take-off position upon request of the pilot,or if initiated by ATC and accepted by the pilot, provided that all of the conditions of 6.5.2.2 to 6.5.2.5 are met.

6.5.2.2 The reduced runway declared distances for each published intersection take-off position shall consist of the following:
a) reduced take-off run available (reduced TORA);
b) reduced take-off distance available (reduced TODA); and
c) reduced accelerate-stop distance available (reduced ASDA).

6.5.2.3 The reference point from which the reduced runway declared distances for a published intersection take-off position are measured shall be in accordance with the relevant provisions in the Air Navigation Plan — European Region, Volume II — FASID (Doc 7754), Part III — AOP.

6.5.2.4 Reduced runway declared distances for an intersection take-off position shall be published in the relevant AIP, clearly distinguishable from full runway declared distances.

6.5.2.5 Signs shall be in accordance with Annex 14, Volume I."

Clearcut. But...does anyone know if a way exists to avoid sending e.g. an ultralight down the other side of a 10,000ft runway WITHOUT having published Intersection take-off positions or reduced distances? Not that I really mind having them taxi all way down, but still...They're even trying to save on tires' wear...

[confused atco]

You could also use a phrase like "Full backtrack available".

That way the pilot will advise you.

Remember the old adage of the most useless things.

RWY behind you

[kpnagidi]

Hi confused, I'm not talking about what the pilot might prefer but if I can override the fact I cannot authorise an intersection departure as there haven't been published redused TORA,TODA,ASDA.
Anyone?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

What you can and cannot do should be detailed in your unit local instructions.

[samotnik]

HD, that's not a very helpful comment. I'm sure he would not ask if there were anything about it in his local instructions.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Well I apologise but I suggest that it is not a good idea to ask for answers on here which may contravene local regs.

[Plazbot]

Should have told him to Google it. Just as helpful as always:ugh:

[kpnagidi]

Well, thank you all for your thoughts, I'll make things simpler. National Publications do not differentiate from Doc 7030 EUR on the subject and the airport doesn't have any local instructions. So we're narrowing down to ICAO publications only.

LookingForAJob, although I agree with you regarding their intention, I don't think this gives you the right to use a non published intersection. Say there is a published intersection take-off position at the first available intersection from the beggining of the RWY for which all the conditions are not met, therefor it cannot be used despite it's published but one could use the next available, although not published and of even less length? Wouldn't make sense.

What's interesting is that whenever I've been asked by a pilot to approve an intersection departure - not published - and I state that there are not published reduced distances, most pilots will take full length... I'm reluctantly approving the rest of them - so far.

Any other thoughts before I wrap it up in my mind?

[Atcham Tower]

I may be totally wrong here, but to conform with ICAO, shouldn't the airport have local ATC instructions? This would include the information you are asking about here, plus a lot more.

[kpnagidi]

OK, no local instructions related to intersection departures...

[Atcham Tower]

You did say that the airport doesn't have any local instructions, hence my comment. The intersection departures situation is obviously causing you and your colleagues a lot of concern. Assuming your airport has an ops section, it should be persuaded to provide the measurements for ATC.

[kpnagidi]

Well, thank you all for your views, I suppose no more intersection departures...

[kpnagidi]

LookingForAJob don't misunderstand me - I understand and respect your opinion, just don't share it, I mean the ambiguity of the rule.

As for the rest I quite agree. Common sense - I aws clearing ultralight from intersections too. But it's that "what if" that bugged me... Thanks!

[aluminium persuader]

"backtrack as required"