A/FD recommended takeoff and landing runways

CC268 said:
Thanks for the helpful post. I appreciate it.

I didn't mean for this thread to turn into a "you must not know how to read your POH", but unfortunately the performance charts in my POH are pretty wimpy compared to the 172 I used to fly which had corrections for tailwinds, higher DAs, etc.
Click to expand...
That's going to be true of the older Cherokees. I'm teaching in a 140, so I know what you are talking about. Takeoff performance chart is basically zero wind and maximum 7,000 D-Alt with n advisory to not extrapolate above that. But, in fact, pilots, properly trained for those kinds of operations, go beyond the POH all the time (I sure did with some of the older airplanes I flew when I lived in Colorado). That's why I mentioned some of the rules of thumb, but with the caution about relying on them untested.
 
Clip4 said:
Aircraft have performance data you might opt to evaluate rather than asking a blanket question.
Click to expand...

Amen. Must not be an iPad app that easily answers the question, so driver is lost. Not surprised based on past history on here.
 
KA550 said:
Amen. Must not be an iPad app that easily answers the question, so driver is lost. Not surprised based on past history on here.
Click to expand...

Haha pretty funny when I saw your name I knew you'd post a troll answer. Your probably the biggest dick on here and by far the biggest troll. Why do you bother posting on here? You love to hide behind your internet keyboard.
 
KA550 said:
Amen. Must not be an iPad app that easily answers the question, so driver is lost. Not surprised based on past history on here.
Click to expand...
Here's the takeoff performance data for his airplane (assuming the vintage; there are a bunch of different AFMs for the 140 series). Density altitude at KTVL this afternoon will be about 8200'. So your well-considered expert answer based on the performance data, with explanation so the rest of us can learn from it, is...


Cherokee140TakeoffPerf.jpg
 
Seriously what's the deal with some people on here? Look at KA550s posts...almost every single one is nothing but trolling. Sad we have people like that on here.

Looks like he has a severe case of little man syndrome.

Question for the mods. Isn't there an actual sticky on here about reporting trolls? Look at KA550s posts. Is that not trolling to the highest degree? Is there anywhere he has posted something constructive? Or am I just dreaming?
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Here's the takeoff performance data for his airplane (assuming the vintage; there are a bunch of different AFMs for the 140 series). Density altitude at KTVL this afternoon will be about 8200'.


View attachment 54719
Click to expand...
Based on that, but without having flown a Cherokee 140 in a LONG time, I'd probably default to not worrying about tailwinds until they exceed 10 knots...keeping terrain and climb in mind, of course.

It's also been a while since I've been to KTVL, but I seem to recall that with some minor turns you can get to the water in ground effect, and there are no towers on the water. ;)
 
I suspect the responses are harsh because there are too many variables to give a blanket answer. A 5 knot tailwind might be acceptable if you're taking off on a 2% downhill gradient but a wash if the gradient is only 0.2%. Is the obstacle 50 feet, 25 feet, or 150 feet. How far from the runway is the obstacle. Etc.
 
dmspilot said:
I suspect the responses are harsh because there are too many variables to give a blanket answer. A 5 knot tailwind might be acceptable if you're taking off on a 2% downhill gradient but a wash if the gradient is only 0.2%. Is the obstacle 50 feet, 25 feet, or 150 feet. How far from the runway is the obstacle. Etc.
Click to expand...

I fully understand...as stated above in retrospect I should have provided some more background to the question. It was my bad. I will do my best to phrase better questions in the future.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Based on that, but without having flown a Cherokee 140 in a LONG time, I'd probably default to not worrying about tailwinds until they exceed 10 knots...keeping terrain and climb in mind, of course.

It's also been a while since I've been to KTVL, but I seem to recall that with some minor turns you can get to the water in ground effect, and there are no towers on the water. ;)
Click to expand...
Without going through the play with numbers process, you and me both. But that's using knowledge and experience independent of merely looking at a performance chart which, in this case, essentially says, "don't ask me!"
 
midlifeflyer said:
Without going through the play with numbers process, you and me both. But that's using knowledge and experience independent of merely looking at a performance chart which, in this case, essentially says, "don't ask me!"
Click to expand...
True...and that was basically the OP's question as I understand it..."what experience can be applied when charts don't go that far?"

Another tool that I've found very useful over the years is the T.O.P. Computer from Sporty's:
http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/takeoff-performance-computer.html
Since most of us don't fly exactly like the test pilots did, and our airplanes aren't new, it can be used to take those factors into account as well.
 
MauleSkinner said:
True...and that was basically the OP's question as I understand it..."what experience can be applied when charts don't go that far?"

Another tool that I've found very useful over the years is the T.O.P. Computer from Sporty's:
http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/takeoff-performance-computer.html
Since most of us don't fly exactly like the test pilots did, and our airplanes aren't new, it can be used to take those factors into account as well.
Click to expand...

Interesting...might be worth buying that. Don't show that to KA550 though he might call you a lesser pilot for using a "computer" :D
 
midlifeflyer said:
You can play with some numbers on the ground before you leave.
Click to expand...

I know you know this but ... so many people don't ever read the words...

91.103 (b) says "must". Not "can". Not "should". MUST.

Takeoff and landing numbers are not optional.

I had a CFI beat this into my head at around 150 total hours when I started feeling a little too familiar with my airplane.

"If you can't state your exact expected takeoff and landing distances for your expected runways, you didn't complete your pre-flight requirements."

Period. End of discussion. He wouldn't let you turn the key until you showed him the numbers, whether you had a 10,000' runway or a 3,000' runway for departure and arrival.

Now since way back then, all of our lives have gotten easier and you can do the calculations with a flick of your thumb on your phone or tablet if you like. And KA550 can like that or not, doesn't matter.

And even back then there was a way to cheat. I knew his weight, I knew my weight, I knew the runways we used, and all I had to recalculate for was temperature. I kept a table in my flight bag for the usual runways since we were training and we weren't going anywhere else.

I've gone from lazy to doing it every flight back to lazy back to doing it every flight at least three times now. I'm not going to claim to be perfect about it. But ultimately complacency leads to problems.

One of the local clubs had TOLD sheets. Takeoff and Landing Data. You had to fill one out for your flight and make them a copy before they would hand you the keys.
 
denverpilot said:
I know you know this but ... so many people don't ever read the words...

91.103 (b) says "must". Not "can". Not "should". MUST.

***
"If you can't state your exact expected takeoff and landing distances for your expected runways, you didn't complete your pre-flight requirements."
Click to expand...
Nate, you are attributing a level of knowledge and practice to me I don't have. I don't see the reg requiring a precise takeoff and landing distance calculation. What I read it as requiring is "becoming familiar with"
  1. "runway lengths at airports of intended use" and
  2. "takeoff and landing distance information"
I appreciate and compliment that CFIs inculcation of commercial operator level attention to detail, and there is no question demonstrating the ability to do a full TOLD analysis is a necessity (template or not). But I don't think "become familiar" requires a full calculation of takeoff distance for a 172 departing a 10,000' runway at sea level on a standard day. I'm "familiar" enough with the performance data to know it's not an issue.

What I do have is an informational page in my checklists which includes the book required takeoff distance over a 50' obstacle at max gross with zero wind at sea level and a reasonably high density altitude ("reasonably high" is lower now than 5 years ago :)). If my departure and destination airports are comfortably within those parameters, i.e., I know I have more than enough runway, I don't do any additional calculation. If they aren't, I definitely do.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Nate, you are attributing a level of knowledge and practice to me I don't have. I don't see the reg requiring a precise takeoff and landing distance calculation. What I read it as requiring is "becoming familiar with"
  1. "runway lengths at airports of intended use" and
  2. "takeoff and landing distance information"
I appreciate and compliment that CFIs inculcation of commercial operator level attention to detail, and there is no question demonstrating the ability to do a full TOLD analysis is a necessity (template or not). But I don't think "become familiar" requires a full calculation of takeoff distance for a 172 departing a 10,000' runway at sea level on a standard day. I'm "familiar" enough with the performance data to know it's not an issue.

What I do have is an informational page in my checklists which includes the book required takeoff distance over a 50' obstacle at max gross with zero wind at sea level and a reasonably high density altitude ("reasonably high" is lower now than 5 years ago :)). If my departure and destination airports are comfortably within those parameters, i.e., I know I have more than enough runway, I don't do any additional calculation. If they aren't, I definitely do.
Click to expand...

I just figured as a lawyer you'd attribute the word "the pilot must" as having a different meaning as "the pilot should", legally.

Ever take a checkride where the DPE let you hop into the airplane without calculating the TOLD data? I haven't.
 
denverpilot said:
How long ago? I'm not asking to be argumentative. I think it's against their direct FAA guidance now.
Click to expand...

Whether they're supposed to or not, I know there are some who don't require it on things like an instrument checkride. On a checkride where the applicant is being tested on the area of performance charts, then you bet they're going to do one.

My personal experience has been about 50/50 on whether I had to do one or not on a checkride.
 
denverpilot said:
I just figured as a lawyer you'd attribute the word "the pilot must" as having a different meaning as "the pilot should", legally.

Ever take a checkride where the DPE let you hop into the airplane without calculating the TOLD data? I haven't.
Click to expand...
Only on my PPL. Not IR or MEL or BFR (DPE wanted to get out and fly).
Note, all since 2010.

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk
 
denverpilot said:
I just figured as a lawyer you'd attribute the word "the pilot must" as having a different meaning as "the pilot should", legally.

Ever take a checkride where the DPE let you hop into the airplane without calculating the TOLD data? I haven't.
Click to expand...
As a lawyer, he attributes the proper meaning to ALL of the words in the reg, not just certain ones taken out of context.
 
denverpilot said:
I had a CFI beat this into my head at around 150 total hours when I started feeling a little too familiar with my airplane.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what the reg requires -- to be familiar. Your CFI was wrong.
 
dmspilot said:
That's exactly what the reg requires -- to be familiar. Your CFI was wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree, and that was what I was trained for. By two airline pilots, one a check airman.

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk
 
I don't know how you can say the sentence says that "familiarity" is all that's required.

That's the sentence BEFORE the requirement.

Like I said I'm not perfect about it by any means, but two airline pilots and a check airman didn't read the sentence correctly.

And whether you "agree" or not doesn't matter either.

The sentence is a requirement and quite clear.

----

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.

***** This information must include - *****

(Emphasis added.)

For any flight, ***** runway lengths ***** at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff and landing distance information:"

(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein; and

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to ***** aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature.*****

-----

Nowhere does it say those things above are optional.

In fact, in a sentence so vague that it says "familiar with all items" for a flight, FAA pauses and says, "and the ONE thing that is mandatory out of ALLLLLLL those things you have to know... is... TOLD data."

Otherwise they could have stopped ag the end of the familiarize sentence.
 
I think the point folks are arguing about here is whether you have to actually do a TOLD calculation RIGHT NOW, before you take off. And I see nothing in the reg you quoted that requires a calculation. You just have to be familiar with the lengths and the performance data and the implication is that you know you will be within the takeoff envelope. If I know from previous calculations, experience, etc. that I can clear a 50 ft obstacle in under 2300 feet at any density altitude that's higher than the current density altitude at my field of departure, more heavily loaded than I am now, and with any headwind that is less than that currently reported, and my field of departure has 3000 feet of runway usable for takeoff and no departure end obstacle, then I've done my due diligence as required by the rules.

It might still be unsafe for me to take off for other reasons (e.g. crosswind or rapidly changing winds, rough surface, W&B out of the envelope, wildlife on the runway, etc.), but that's a different question.

At least, that's how I see it...
 
denverpilot said:
I don't know how you can say the sentence says that "familiarity" is all that's required.

That's the sentence BEFORE the requirement.

Like I said I'm not perfect about it by any means, but two airline pilots and a check airman didn't read the sentence correctly.

And whether you "agree" or not doesn't matter either.

The sentence is a requirement and quite clear.

----

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.

***** This information must include - *****

(Emphasis added.)

For any flight, ***** runway lengths ***** at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff and landing distance information:"

(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein; and

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to ***** aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature.*****

-----

Nowhere does it say those things above are optional.

In fact, in a sentence so vague that it says "familiar with all items" for a flight, FAA pauses and says, "and the ONE thing that is mandatory out of ALLLLLLL those things you have to know... is... TOLD data."

Otherwise they could have stopped ag the end of the familiarize sentence.
Click to expand...
Read the full paragraph. The second section describes how to accommodate when performance data is not available in the AFM. No where does it say you cannot take off.
How you define reasonable will only be determined at your hearing. At a suggestion, build your own performance data if the AFM does not have any.

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk
 
denverpilot said:
I just figured as a lawyer you'd attribute the word "the pilot must" as having a different meaning as "the pilot should", legally.
Click to expand...
Sure, as a lawyer, "the pilot should" and "the pilot must" means two completely different things. Unfortunately, neither phrase appears in 91.103. That's just semantics, though; the language of the reg is "the pilot shall," and it's definitely mandatory. What I think we disagree on exactly what the reg says the pilot "shal" or "must" do. Here's the exact language, in context (with my emphasis):

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. This information must include -
(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport, weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if the planned flight cannot be completed, and any known traffic delays of which the pilot in command has been advised by ATC;
(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff and landing distance information:
(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein; and
(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature.​

Take out the excess and , in English, it says: Before beginning a flight, the pilot in command shall (I'm happy to use "must" if you prefer; the meaning is the same), "become familiar with all available information concerning that flight." The information the pilot must become familiar with includes runway lengths at airports of intended use, and takeoff and landing distance information based on the AFM or, in the absence of an AFM, other reliable information.

I see a requirement of familiarity with the information; not the requirement you see to do a calculation to the foot. YMMV.

Ever take a checkride where the DPE let you hop into the airplane without calculating the TOLD data? I haven't.
Click to expand...

I bet you get a bunch of different answers on that one :D. But either way, when I said
midlifeflyer said:
There is no question demonstrating the ability to do a full TOLD analysis is a necessity (template or not)
Click to expand...
I didn't think I had to add all the reasons for demonstrating that ability, including that day when "familiarity" tells you the numbers are close and you need to do a full calculation and, of course, a checkride, even if the use of performance charts were not a specific task.
 
denverpilot said:
I don't know how you can say the sentence says that "familiarity" is all that's required.

That's the sentence BEFORE the requirement.
Click to expand...

Not seeing your point. Are you trying to say that because they're not the same sentence, they're not related? They're in the same paragraph, with takeoff and landing distance being a subparagraph of that paragraph.

In other words, takeoff and landing distance data is a subset of the information with which the pilot has to be "familiar". I don't understand how you can argue otherwise.

denverpilot said:
Otherwise they could have stopped ag the end of the familiarize sentence.
Click to expand...

And we don't need a Bill of Rights either.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
 
dmspilot said:
And we don't need a Bill of Rights either.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Click to expand...

Completely and utterly unrelated. The FARs have no such provision.

No reason to be mad at me. Just write to the Chief Counsel for an interpretation of their ****ty writing. (No please don't.)

Is "familiarized" that you can rattle off the exact numbers or not? That's the real question. What margin of error is allowable in "familiarization"?

I don't write this garbage. They do. And of all the possible things they could list as *required* for a sentence that essentially says you need to know *everything* about the flight, they chose only two things. Runway lengths and takeoff and landing data.

Why bother? The pilot had better damn well a lot more than that prior to flying. But they emphasized only two.
 
denverpilot said:
Completely and utterly unrelated. The FARs have no such provision.
Click to expand...

No such provision as what? Do you not know how analogies work?

denverpilot said:
Just write to the Chief Counsel for an interpretation of their ****ty writing. (No please don't.)

I don't write this garbage. They do. And of all the possible things they could list as *required* for a sentence that essentially says you need to know *everything* about the flight, they chose only two things. Runway lengths and takeoff and landing data.
Click to expand...

Why would I want to? You are the one who says it's "****ty writing" and "garbage". I do not have a problem with it.

denverpilot said:
Why bother? The pilot had better damn well a lot more than that prior to flying. But they emphasized only two.
Click to expand...

There are more than two.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I would rather have the 8. If I need four seats I'll make two trips. Twice as much fun. :)
Click to expand...

First time I saw the RV8 I thought it looked like a tiny uncomfortable airplane. Once I actually sat in it (the backseat) and flew it I changed my mind. Awesome airplane
 
Andddddd were spiraling out of control
 
tspear said:
Read the full paragraph. The second section describes how to accommodate when performance data is not available in the AFM. No where does it say you cannot take off.
How you define reasonable will only be determined at your hearing. At a suggestion, build your own performance data if the AFM does not have any.

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
...and if you read it carefully, it doesn't say anything about whether or not it's IN the AFM, it's whether that data is REQUIRED TO BE in the AFM.
 
MauleSkinner said:
...and if you read it carefully, it doesn't say anything about whether or not it's IN the AFM, it's whether that data is REQUIRED TO BE in the AFM.
Click to expand...
It says "the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top