Cirrus down Colorado Springs, no survivors

[acrophile]

Damn[.]

They are dropping like flies this year[.]

This has actually been a comparatively safe year for GA. The NTSB database lists 208 fatal GA accidents in the US so far in 2015. For the same portion of the year, there were 231 such accidents in 2014, 199 in 2013, and 228 in 2012.

 

[FastEddieB]

For Bryan and any COPA members, Rick Beach just did an excellent summary of attempted return-to-airport maneuvers in Cirrus aircraft.

Found in the thread about this accident.

 

[Bonchie]

N752C registered in Roanoke, TX

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2015/11/cirrus-sr22-fatal-accident-occurred.html

Sure seems like some good off-field landing spots where he went down. Wonder what happened. RIP.

Very easy for a "good off field landing spot" to turn deadly.

 

[bnt83]

Damn....

They are dropping like flies this year...

Lots of engine failures. What gives
Damn Sad

I felt the same way considering Cirrus makes up a small portion the fleet, are uber expensive and typically better maintained than much older airplanes that are owned by folks that might not really be able to afford them.

WFT is going on?

 

[Henning]

For Bryan and any COPA members, Rick Beach just did an excellent summary of attempted return-to-airport maneuvers in Cirrus aircraft.

Found in the thread about this accident.

If I was going to go for an Imposible turn in a Cirrus, I would choose the chute instead.

 

[FastEddieB]

Permission received from Rick Beach to cross-post here:

STOP!
This discussion of the return to the airport maneuver worries me greatly.

If you do not always fly a Cirrus, then okay, you may need to consider when and how that might work.

When you do fly a Cirrus, please do not attempt a return to airport maneuver with lost power low to the ground. DO NOT. Please do not die with a perfectly good parachute behind you.

If you fly a Cirrus, plan to climb to a CAPS-viable altitude as soon as possible and state and practice your intention to deploy CAPS. Make it part of your departure briefing. At 500' AGL (600' AGL in a G5), callout "CAPS & FLAPS" and grasp the CAPS handle (don't pull it! Wink) -- to make a habit you can rely upon in an emergency.

Why no return-to-airport maneuver? Because people in a Cirrus die in emergency situations attempting to maneuver close to the ground. Don't be another fatality.

Lancaster, CA in 2006, where an instructor with low time had his helicopter pilot student attempt a return-to-airport maneuver the second time, the plane stalled and spun into the ground, both were killed.

Edgewater, MD in 2006, where the pilot botched a hurried traffic pattern after a go-around, stalled and spun into the ground.

Lindsay, OK in 2008, where a pilot and his instructor with zero time botched a practice power-off landing, stalled and spun into the ground.

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 2008, where the pilot may have misfueled the plane but turned around at 1500 feet to return to the airport but crashed into buildings before reaching the airport

Mayfield, OH in 2009, where the pilot had confusing autopilot operation and attempted a return to the airport, became disoriented, stalled and spun into the ground

Rock Hill, SC in 2009, where the plane sounded like it had engine problems, the pilot attempted a return-to-airport maneuver and crashed at high speed into the ground.

Buttonville, Ontario, Canada in 2010, where the engine failed and the pilot attempted a return-to-airport maneuver but crashed into the top of a building

Phoenix, AZ in 2010, where the pilot attempted to fly an abbreviated traffic pattern to return to the airport to close a door, stalled on base turn and spun into the ground

Then things quiet down for awhile . . .

Melbourne, FL in 2012, where the pilot aggressively maneuvered low to the ground, stalled and spun into the ground.

Lanseria, South Africa in 2013, where the pilot undergoing a checkout with an instructor turned crosswind early, stalled, recovered, pulled CAPS very low, and impacted the ground, killing both occupants.

Lake Wales, FL in 2015, where the pilot undergoing instrument training and his instructor attempted an emergency landing at the airport, overfly their intended runway, maneuvered low to the ground, stalled, and spun into the ground while deploying the parachute too low to be effective.

Why no return-to-airport maneuver? Attempting to maneuver in an emergency low to the ground does not look like a highly survivable event.

What could be bad about knowing that it works for you at about xxx' AGL in a Cirrus? Because in a Cirrus it cross-trains you to consider a risky maneuver with bad outcomes rather than developing the habit to land straight ahead or deploy CAPS with good outcomes.

What is bad about practicing it in a Cirrus? Because in an emergency, the situation is sufficiently different that we are unlikely to perform as well. Here are some of my thoughts about what's different between a practice attempt and an emergency attempt:

your stress level in an emergency is different and likely impacts the quality of your performance, usually degrading it
your anticipation while practicing shifts to your reaction in an emergency, usually requiring several seconds to realize and deal with the real thing, seconds you cannot waste
your practice at 3000' AGL or above does not prepare you for the reality of ground-rush and closing in on obstacles as you turn and descend, which probably will create a strong incentive to maneuver more aggressively
your landing site may still be off the runway and filled with unpleasant hazards on the ground
Oh, and you may be rusty, not having practiced the maneuver recently!

We know that CAPS deployments work with the loss of power low to the ground:

Houston, TX in 2015, shortly after departure with loss of engine power, deployed CAPS and landed in a residential neighborhood

Burlington, MA in 2014, with loss of power while maneuvering back to the airport

And a whole bunch more CAPS deployments with loss of engine power.

Bottom line, if you fly a Cirrus and have engine problems low to the ground, please, please, please, plan and practice to deploy CAPS before you descend below a CAPS-viable altitude.

Cheers
Rick

 

[hindsight2020]

If I was going to go for an Imposible turn in a Cirrus, I would choose the chute instead.

Agreed. And conversely, in an instance where I didn't have the altitude required to make an impossible turn, I wouldn't pull the chute either. The Hawaii pre-planned CAPS deployment video sealed for me the dynamics of the chute and why it's not a safer alternative to forced landing below 800AGL.

 

[timwinters]

If you set Take Off Trim to be Best Glide (which lo and behold is pretty close to Vy) you don't need to push, when the power lets go, the nose will drop all on its own. What you have to train yourself to do is not pull back, and trim for BG on take off.

ummm...i'm not sure about other planes but in a properly rigged strutted Cessna, you obtain best glide by rolling the trim all the way back to the stop. Take-off trim is well forward of best glide trim. If I trimmed my 182 all the way back I'd need Popeye's forearms to avoid a power on departure stall.

Sure best glide may be a similar speed to Vy but the latter is power on and the former power off. Power on/off makes a huge difference in a strutted Cessna. Have no idea how that translates to other brands...

 

[Bill Watson]

If you set Take Off Trim to be Best Glide (which lo and behold is pretty close to Vy) you don't need to push, when the power lets go, the nose will drop all on its own. What you have to train yourself to do is not pull back, and trim for BG on take off.

That's what I discovered in my Maule. Didn't know trim for best glide but trimming for takeoff and pulling the power didn't require a big push. It just required letting the nose fall as I racked it around for the turn (at altitude). I was looking for the push but discovered it wasn't really required.

The trim to best glide for take-off poster makes sense; when practicing the Impossible Turn, it jumped out at me how hard you have to push, even in a 172, as the airspeed decays real fast in the departure config, when you yank the power.

I'm thinking it may vary plane to plane and particularly relative to flap settings.

 

[FloridaPilot]

Always a bummer. Seems to support the case for being trigger happy with CAPS.

I don't know about you,

But If I pay $15,000 every ten years to repack the CAPS. I'm pulling and it better work!!

 

[Lindberg]

Permission received from Rick Beach to cross-post here:

STOP!
This discussion of the return to the airport maneuver worries me greatly.

If you do not always fly a Cirrus, then okay, you may need to consider when and how that might work.

When you do fly a Cirrus, please do not attempt a return to airport maneuver with lost power low to the ground. DO NOT. Please do not die with a perfectly good parachute behind you.

If you fly a Cirrus, plan to climb to a CAPS-viable altitude as soon as possible and state and practice your intention to deploy CAPS. Make it part of your departure briefing. At 500' AGL (600' AGL in a G5), callout "CAPS & FLAPS" and grasp the CAPS handle (don't pull it! Wink) -- to make a habit you can rely upon in an emergency.

Why no return-to-airport maneuver? Because people in a Cirrus die in emergency situations attempting to maneuver close to the ground. Don't be another fatality.

Lancaster, CA in 2006, where an instructor with low time had his helicopter pilot student attempt a return-to-airport maneuver the second time, the plane stalled and spun into the ground, both were killed.

Edgewater, MD in 2006, where the pilot botched a hurried traffic pattern after a go-around, stalled and spun into the ground.

Lindsay, OK in 2008, where a pilot and his instructor with zero time botched a practice power-off landing, stalled and spun into the ground.

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 2008, where the pilot may have misfueled the plane but turned around at 1500 feet to return to the airport but crashed into buildings before reaching the airport

Mayfield, OH in 2009, where the pilot had confusing autopilot operation and attempted a return to the airport, became disoriented, stalled and spun into the ground

Rock Hill, SC in 2009, where the plane sounded like it had engine problems, the pilot attempted a return-to-airport maneuver and crashed at high speed into the ground.

Buttonville, Ontario, Canada in 2010, where the engine failed and the pilot attempted a return-to-airport maneuver but crashed into the top of a building

Phoenix, AZ in 2010, where the pilot attempted to fly an abbreviated traffic pattern to return to the airport to close a door, stalled on base turn and spun into the ground

Then things quiet down for awhile . . .

Melbourne, FL in 2012, where the pilot aggressively maneuvered low to the ground, stalled and spun into the ground.

Lanseria, South Africa in 2013, where the pilot undergoing a checkout with an instructor turned crosswind early, stalled, recovered, pulled CAPS very low, and impacted the ground, killing both occupants.

Lake Wales, FL in 2015, where the pilot undergoing instrument training and his instructor attempted an emergency landing at the airport, overfly their intended runway, maneuvered low to the ground, stalled, and spun into the ground while deploying the parachute too low to be effective.

Why no return-to-airport maneuver? Attempting to maneuver in an emergency low to the ground does not look like a highly survivable event.

What could be bad about knowing that it works for you at about xxx' AGL in a Cirrus? Because in a Cirrus it cross-trains you to consider a risky maneuver with bad outcomes rather than developing the habit to land straight ahead or deploy CAPS with good outcomes.

What is bad about practicing it in a Cirrus? Because in an emergency, the situation is sufficiently different that we are unlikely to perform as well. Here are some of my thoughts about what's different between a practice attempt and an emergency attempt:

your stress level in an emergency is different and likely impacts the quality of your performance, usually degrading it
your anticipation while practicing shifts to your reaction in an emergency, usually requiring several seconds to realize and deal with the real thing, seconds you cannot waste
your practice at 3000' AGL or above does not prepare you for the reality of ground-rush and closing in on obstacles as you turn and descend, which probably will create a strong incentive to maneuver more aggressively
your landing site may still be off the runway and filled with unpleasant hazards on the ground
Oh, and you may be rusty, not having practiced the maneuver recently!

We know that CAPS deployments work with the loss of power low to the ground:

Houston, TX in 2015, shortly after departure with loss of engine power, deployed CAPS and landed in a residential neighborhood

Burlington, MA in 2014, with loss of power while maneuvering back to the airport

And a whole bunch more CAPS deployments with loss of engine power.

Bottom line, if you fly a Cirrus and have engine problems low to the ground, please, please, please, plan and practice to deploy CAPS before you descend below a CAPS-viable altitude.

Cheers
Rick

I've said before, I don't have a Cirrus, but if you've got one, and you're concerned about the ability to complete your flight safely, pull the handle. But don't do it because of the flawed logic above. Following the author's reasoning, you'd have to pull the handle instead of flying a pattern since most of the listed incidents didn't involve an attempted impossible turn.

 

[SkyDog58]

ummm...i'm not sure about other planes but in a properly rigged strutted Cessna, you obtain best glide by rolling the trim all the way back to the stop. Take-off trim is well forward of best glide trim. If I trimmed my 182 all the way back I'd need Popeye's forearms to avoid a power on departure stall.

Sure best glide may be a similar speed to Vy but the latter is power on and the former power off. Power on/off makes a huge difference in a strutted Cessna. Have no idea how that translates to other brands...

I agree with this. You can get the same speed in a variety of power/pitch/flap configurations. Just because two speeds are represented by the same number of knots does not mean the airplane is configured the same in both.

 

[Lindberg]

ummm...i'm not sure about other planes but in a properly rigged strutted Cessna, you obtain best glide by rolling the trim all the way back to the stop. Take-off trim is well forward of best glide trim. If I trimmed my 182 all the way back I'd need Popeye's forearms to avoid a power on departure stall.

Sure best glide may be a similar speed to Vy but the latter is power on and the former power off. Power on/off makes a huge difference in a strutted Cessna. Have no idea how that translates to other brands...

Best climb rate is probably closer to min sink than it is to best glide (L/D max). Otherwise, I agree that the trim positions may be very different depending on power. But in the planes I fly, setting the trim to a somewhat neutral position is adequate for takeoff, and would not require a big push to get to best glide. I usually set trim neutral for takeoff and then trim for Vy on the climbout. I fly low-powered, low-performance funships, though, and I am sure that would not work in a lot of craft.

 

[bflynn]

Re: KCOS Cirrus SR22 Fatal

http://m.gazette.com/no-survivors-in-small-plane-crash-near-colorado-springs-airport/article/1562936

There was an explosion after the impact, Rodi said, and a fire erupted, destroying most of the plane and burning one-half of a mile of the surrounding open field.

Guys - please - if you find yourself in this situation, please don't try to save the insurance company's airplane. Get it down on the nearest field, don't stall it and live to tell everyone about it.

I'm tired of reading about pilots spinning airplanes on engine outs. Can we stop now?

 

[FloridaPilot]

Re: KCOS Cirrus SR22 Fatal

I'm tired of reading about pilots spinning airplanes on engine outs. Can we stop now?

Judging from this post alone it will continue!

 

[Sundancer]

So the tricky part is making that turn-back call accurately; I don't like "always do (or don't) whatever"; maybe 500 feet is plenty if you took off into a 20 knot headwind? Not nearly enough if it was calm?

No reliable data on hours flown in GA, so no way to tell if this year is better/worse/same as any other recent year.

 

[Henning]

ummm...i'm not sure about other planes but in a properly rigged strutted Cessna, you obtain best glide by rolling the trim all the way back to the stop. Take-off trim is well forward of best glide trim. If I trimmed my 182 all the way back I'd need Popeye's forearms to avoid a power on departure stall.

Sure best glide may be a similar speed to Vy but the latter is power on and the former power off. Power on/off makes a huge difference in a strutted Cessna. Have no idea how that translates to other brands...

I can't remember ever having trimmed a Cessna full nose up to reach best glide.

 

[timwinters]

I can't remember ever having trimmed a Cessna full nose up to reach best glide.

Go fly a legacy 172...182 that's in good condition and properly rigged...chop the engine and roll the trim all the way back to the stop. Let it stabilize and let us know at what speed it does.

It's a GREAT feature on properly rigged Cessnas. If you have an engine out, then you simply roll the trim all the way back and go on to other tasks. Saves a good fifteen to thirty seconds of trimming for best glide by feel.

 

[Fearless Tower]

So the tricky part is making that turn-back call accurately; I don't like "always do (or don't) whatever";

You may not like it, but that is exactly what you need to do: set a hard deck and respect it. Obviously it will vary between different aircraft types, but you need to have this resolved before you push the throttle forward.

Indecisiveness kills people. You have to be committed. You don't want to be having a debate with yourself when the fan quits turning. That will get you killed. Just like rejecting a takeoff in a twin- you need to have a plan and stick to it.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Go fly a legacy 172...182 that's in good condition and properly rigged...chop the engine and roll the trim all the way back to the stop. Let it stabilize and let us know at what speed it does.



It's a GREAT feature on properly rigged Cessnas. If you have an engine out, then you simply roll the trim all the way back and go on to other tasks. Saves a good fifteen to thirty seconds of trimming for best glide by feel.

Exactly. IIRC, best glide in a 172 is around 65 kts and full nose up trim will pretty much get you there. I have always heard the full nose up trim for 172 engine failure from CFIs.

 

[Sundancer]

You may not like it, but that is exactly what you need to do: set a hard deck and respect it. Obviously it will vary between different aircraft types, but you need to have this resolved before you push the throttle forward.

Indecisiveness kills people. You have to be committed. You don't want to be having a debate with yourself when the fan quits turning. That will get you killed. Just like rejecting a takeoff in a twin- you need to have a plan and stick to it.

I hear you, but I gotta disagree. I did a lot of experimenting with it, and the wind direction/speed matter. There isn't one hard deck altitude that works all the time.

I might make a note that "Today, with 15 knots down the pipe, at or above 600 AGL I turn back". Tomorrow, dead calm, I want 700 AGL. Not suicidal or nuts, but not gonna plow in off-airport if a competently executed turn will put me back on the runway (or another decent spot on the airport).

The visual impression does take some getting used to - the peripheral clues are dramatic, banked at or in excess of 45 degrees, close to the ground. I don't think it'd be good if the first time you had to do it was for real.

I just want a flat spot to park a 172; it can be short, on grass, taxiway, right angle to the rwy, whatever. Probably not as good an idea for a Cirrus, I admit; an older 172, flaps 40, touching down real slow, horn blaring, just a lot less energy to dissipate.

 

[FastEddieB]

This link was just posted to COPA:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=96a_1447139169

A Mooney, but shows how quickly things can go downhill when one is tempted to turn around in a hurry.

 

[FlySince9]

I don't know about you,

But If I pay $15,000 every ten years to repack the CAPS. I'm pulling and it better work!!

if it doesn't, do you get a refund?

 

[petrolero]

It depends too on the layout of the airport. Some airports have a crosswind runway that makes the "impossible turn" much more realistic.

Take a look at KCOS and you'll notice an 8270' crosswind runway that could greatly facilitate a turn back depending on the situation. Left turn off 35L/R would produce the least required turn angle.

Just in my area, KAPA and KDEN and KPUB and KLAA and many others have a crosswind runway also. It's something to consider during a departure briefing that may influence the decision about when to turn back.

There's no "always" or "never" but there should be a plan before takeoff for those particular conditions, airport and aircraft.

 

[Silvaire]

The bottom line remains that in the vast majority of these fatal incidences it's a stall/spin that gets the folks killed and making a dead stick 180 vastly increases the chances of that happening.

Also the idea that you need to make a decision and stick to it doesn't make sense. It's a dynamic situation so if you make a decision and it becomes obvious it's not going to work what's the point of sticking to it?

A while back there was a video being posted of the old guy in a fully loaded Stinson taking off from a high altitude strip. The passenger kept the camera rolling throughout the whole thing and although the pilot made a great number of mistakes the one thing he didn't do was try to turn around. He ended up flying right into the tree tops, no stall, no spin and although it was a pretty gnarly crash I believe all of them survived.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

The bottom line remains that in the vast majority of these fatal incidences it's a stall/spin that gets the folks killed and making a dead stick 180 vastly increases the chances of that happening.

Also the idea that you need to make a decision and stick to it doesn't make sense. It's a dynamic situation so if you make a decision and it becomes obvious it's not going to work what's the point of sticking to it?

A while back there was a video being posted of the old guy in a fully loaded Stinson taking off from a high altitude strip. The passenger kept the camera rolling throughout the whole thing and although the pilot made a great number of mistakes the one thing he didn't do was try to turn around. He ended up flying right into the tree tops, no stall, no spin and although it was a pretty gnarly crash I believe all of them survived.

Yeah that guy had many opportunities to abort that takeoff

 

[Sundancer]

I just don't see why a return has to be a killer, or a hard-and-fast never turn back rule makes sense. I mean, I get it, people freak, bank and yank, and boom. It can be a killer. Just saying it doesn't have to be, and a mindless commiment to never turn back is sorta a substitute for situational awareness. I can even see setting a hard floor that will work in most situations for your airplane - like 1,000 agl maybe, for a 172, for example.

And if it isn't working out, roll wings level and take what's ahead?

 

[3393RP]

I just don't see why a return has to be a killer, or a hard-and-fast never turn back rule makes sense. I mean, I get it, people freak, bank and yank, and boom. It can be a killer. Just saying it doesn't have to be, and a mindless commiment to never turn back is sorta a substitute for situational awareness. I can even see setting a hard floor that will work in most situations for your airplane - like 1,000 agl maybe, for a 172, for example.

And if it isn't working out, roll wings level and take what's ahead?

You make it sound as if there are opportunities during the maneuver to modify your initial decision, consider alternatives, and adjust accordingly.

In reality, it appears to me that once a bad decision is made, it's likely the sequence of events is going to unfold so quickly that unless you have a firm handle on airspeed, altitude, and attitude along with the ingrained movements generated by forethought and training the result is going to be what was posted above earlier.

This pilot started the turn and the aircraft stalled and spun in almost immediately after the maneuver was initiated. He never came close to maintaining control.

It's a sobering and graphic illustration of what happens when the 'impossible turn' becomes just that.

This link was just posted to COPA:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=96a_1447139169

A Mooney, but shows how quickly things can go downhill when one is tempted to turn around in a hurry.

 

[FastEddieB]

It now appears the pilot chose an intersection takeoff leaving 4,500 feet of usable runway behind them on a 6,500 foot runway.

 

[N801BH]

It now appears the pilot chose an intersection takeoff leaving 4,500 feet of usable runway behind them on a 6,500 foot runway.

I would not read too much into that.... If the motor had not quit,, we would not be Monday Morning Quarterbacking this fatal event....


There are times I accept an intersection take off,, probably more then most people do, since I need maybe 75' to get in the air.... And that is coming from an idiot who put a Ford engine in my experimental...

If I do crash and burn, you guys can all say " If he had used the entire runway, he might have pulled off a safe return"

 

[2Airtime2]

I went on a discovery flight today. We were waiting in line at the end of the runway for the Cirrus in front of us to go. I thought about this thread for a second then concentrated on the instruments.

 

[denverpilot]

If I do crash and burn, you guys can all say " If he had used the entire runway, he might have pulled off a safe return"

And we would.

We'd still miss you, but make no doubt we'd all think it.

And some of us would even still accept intersection departures without a sound plan to mitigate the loss of runway behind us.

 

[Turningfinal]

I would not read too much into that.... If the motor had not quit,, we would not be Monday Morning Quarterbacking this fatal event....


There are times I accept an intersection take off,, probably more then most people do, since I need maybe 75' to get in the air.... And that is coming from an idiot who put a Ford engine in my experimental...

If I do crash and burn, you guys can all say " If he had used the entire runway, he might have pulled off a safe return"

Jeremy Monnett and Mike Clark also accepted an intersection departure prior to their fatal crash at KOSH this summer.

That crash hit home to many, and i'm a believer that had they taken full length they may have made it out alive.

I no longer accept intersection departures.

 

[FastEddieB]

If I do crash and burn, you guys can all say " If he had used the entire runway, he might have pulled off a safe return"

No doubt we will, and some wag will undoubtedly resurrect this thread and that quote, and will likely mine it for the irony.

My Sky Arrow has a takeoff ground run of less than 600'.

I will still almost always use the full length. Did so in my Tiger and Cirrus and prior planes as well.

I've had one engine failure on takeoff - at Nassau in a cropduster - and managed to land straight ahead on the very long runway, which I had taxied to the end of.

Flying is risky enough, and we all accept that. I just try to avoid unnecessary risks, and the little bit of time and fuel saved not taxiing to the end seems a poor tradeoff for the increased risk of not doing so, however small.

 

[Kritchlow]

My Sky Arrow has a takeoff ground run of less than 600'.

I will still almost always use the full length. Did so in my Tiger and Cirrus and prior planes as well.

I've had one engine failure on takeoff - at Nassau in a cropduster - and managed to land straight ahead on the very long runway, which I had taxied to the end of.

Flying is risky enough, and we all accept that. I just try to avoid unnecessary risks, and the little bit of time and fuel saved not taxiing to the end seems a poor tradeoff for the increased risk of not doing so, however small.

Where do you draw the line at full length?

Sorry... Meant to quote post before yours.

 

[Turningfinal]

Where do you draw the line at full length?

Sorry... Meant to quote post before yours.

Full length for me is full length. There's no line to be drawn.

I'm a part time instructor in a Remos. At our home drome, our outfit is located on the east end of the airfield. When the winds are out of the east, many of the guys will accept an intersection departure on Runway 9 leaving 2,500 ft. of runway remaining. That's more than plenty in a Remos at MGTOW when the engine is running.

I used to do that. Now i'll taxi the extra 5 minutes to the end of the runway for the full 6,500 ft. My hope is that an engine failure right after takeoff will allow me to land on the remaining portion of the runway, even if I roll off the end at 30 kts I still have 1,500 ft. to the localizer antenna. If I can't make the remaining runway, I'm likely high enough to turn back or circle for another runway.

 

[Kritchlow]

Full length for me is full length. There's no line to be drawn.

I'm a part time instructor in a Remos. At our home drome, our outfit is located on the east end of the airfield. When the winds are out of the east, many of the guys will accept an intersection departure on Runway 9 leaving 2,500 ft. of runway remaining. That's more than plenty in a Remos at MGTOW when the engine is running.

I used to do that. Now i'll taxi the extra 5 minutes to the end of the runway for the full 6,500 ft. My hope is that an engine failure right after takeoff will allow me to land on the remaining portion of the runway, even if I roll off the end at 30 kts I still have 1,500 ft. to the localizer antenna. If I can't make the remaining runway, I'm likely high enough to turn back or circle for another runway.

So, you're in DFW with 10,000+ feet. Tower assigns you the 200' from the end intersection to get in front of the 777. Airlines consistently do this type of thing. Will you decline?

 

[petrolero]

So, you're in DFW with 10,000+ feet. Tower assigns you the 200' from the end intersection to get in front of the 777. Airlines consistently do this type of thing. Will you decline?

He's probably referring to his home drome but yeah that statement is a bit too categorical.

Intersection takeoffs at some airports give you way more runway than full length (or even double full length) at others.

 

[N801BH]

No doubt we will, and some wag will undoubtedly resurrect this thread and that quote, and will likely mine it for the irony.

My Sky Arrow has a takeoff ground run of less than 600'.

I will still almost always use the full length. Did so in my Tiger and Cirrus and prior planes as well.

I've had one engine failure on takeoff - at Nassau in a cropduster - and managed to land straight ahead on the very long runway, which I had taxied to the end of.

Flying is risky enough, and we all accept that. I just try to avoid unnecessary risks, and the little bit of time and fuel saved not taxiing to the end seems a poor tradeoff for the increased risk of not doing so, however small.

I don't care........ I will be dead....

 

[Turningfinal]

So, you're in DFW with 10,000+ feet. Tower assigns you the 200' from the end intersection to get in front of the 777. Airlines consistently do this type of thing. Will you decline?

I think you know the answer to that without even having to ask. We're not nit-picking here.