3 things that won't help you
...
sky above you
3 things that won't help you
fuel on the ground
sky above you
runway behind you
No argument in a light piston twin.No. Consider the accident report. "Pilot departed 23 at N, with 4000 feet available. Lost power, Leftt engine, attempted to abort, overran and suffered major damage and fire".
Now read the report with 6300 extra feet:
"Pilot lost Left engine on departure, landed straight ahead, but had to be towed off to pad 5".
When V1 is less than Vyse, I'm aborting in a light twin, and for a Seneca II, even lightly loaded on a hot day, that's 4,700 feet. No freaking way. Think, "what would the accident report look like?" every time. I'm taking 11,000 feet.
There are lots of time that leaving fuel on the ground is a good idea.3 things that won't help you
fuel on the ground
When V1 is less than Vyse, I'm aborting in a light twin, and for a Seneca II, even lightly loaded on a hot day, that's 4,700 feet. No freaking way. Think, "what would the accident report look like?" every time. I'm taking 11,000 feet.
In a light twin it's a matter of discipline. Unfortunately the record shows, that for GA, a lot of guys don't have it.
No argument in a light piston twin.
When in doubt, climb. No one has ever collided with the sky.
There are lots of time that leaving fuel on the ground is a good idea.
by sky above you I mean the higher the better, for example if you were up there you would be better unlike down low with all the sky above you
Sometimes yes, sometimes no - PIC makes the judgment call.
i.e. 182 at max gross 3100 lbs at takeoff, but less than full fuel. Or, need to immediately return and land after takeoff at max gross, but now over max landing weight (2950 lbs). The extra fuel not on the ground in that case can be detrimental.
How about less turbulence, or greater visibility?
How about with a 25kt headwind, one takes off at mid field, climbs to 1000 ft, engine quits, turn around and now that runway that was behind you now provides more in front of you...
No. Consider the accident report. "Pilot departed 23 at N, with 4000 feet available. Lost power, Leftt engine, attempted to abort, overran and suffered major damage and fire".
Shouldn't it really be a couple guys talking about how the Seneca lost power in the left side on take off, Mayday'd the tower, entered the pattern and landed without incident? I thought Seneca's would still climb with one engine....really slowly. Is there a reason to try to force it back to the ground rather than fly around and land is a controlled way?
Yet I've seen you fly out of Gaston's, significantly less than 4700 ft (much less 11,000).
I agree, but the discipline is in the procedure more than anything, not saying "requesting full length." As with the rest of flying in twins, the extra engine is useless if you don't know what to do with it, or if the performance is so lackluster on one engine that you're going down anyway.
The 310 was based out of a 2900 ft strip for the 25 years prior to me starting to fly it. You bet that required discipline and some good piloting to get it in and out of there- that's a tight strip for a 310, especially at gross on a hot day (the Colemill conversion ad VGs do help). In 25 years and 3000 hours of flight time, it didn't have any incidents. No, it also didn't have any engine failures on takeoff (did have one in cruise), but the procedure associated with getting the plane in and out of 2700 ft safely (and being prepped for the engine failure at every possible moment) also helped with that. I don't know your Seneca's performance and I suspect that if I was flying a Seneca rather than an Aztec or 310, I'd have lower tolerance for reducing runway, but the answer is highly variable.
I won't fault anyone for taking the extra runway, but faulting others for choosing not to take it when a normal takeoff can be performed is silly.
That depends on the situation....
...."What do I do if my engine fails here?" That needs to be answered before you take the runway.
On the last one you are joking right? You know you don't have to turn the first second the engine quits right?
Exactly - take my example of the Champ starting taxi from the opposite end of an 8000' runway - unless you are planning to do 3 or 4 takeoffs and landings in the same run, there is nothing really gained by using full length there.At some large fields, it can take so long to taxi to the end of the runway that you risk overheating, especially if there are lots of intersections.
Get me to the closest intersection and let me go. If I'm that concerned about 2000' behind me on a 6000' runway, maybe I shouldn't fly this airplane at this field.
That's a different number, Kevin, the Accelerate Go number which does not exist for part 23 aircraft. In part 23 we assume that it is Vyse, whcih on a full gross day would give me 90 knots at +230 feet per minute, if I did everything perfectly. If I haven't made Vyse when I have the engine out, no way will it climb away, unless it's WAYYYY below gross.Shouldn't it really be a couple guys talking about how the Seneca lost power in the left side on take off, Mayday'd the tower, entered the pattern and landed without incident? I thought Seneca's would still climb with one engine....really slowly. Is there a reason to try to force it back to the ground rather than fly around and land is a controlled way?
Remember who was in the plane with me? She would benefit from my estate anyway. So there I have the option to accept condition #1 at Windwood, Gaston's AND and 6Y9. And a 400 hp cherokee, light, is a VERY capable shortfield aircraft, even though I need 80 mph to execute the procedure. I simply have to accept the trees if I lose one.Aztec driver said:Bruce,
We've also seen you take off out of Windwood, at around 3000 feet, and tall obstacles all around, and higher density altitude than this field.
In the example being discussed, the intersection departure leaves with just 4,000. WHY whould I accept that when thousands more are for the asking? Or even 700 more is for the taking?
Ted, do one more rating. You need to think like an ATP.
You prep for the engine failure in a twin.
I heartily believe one *should* brief and prep an engine failure at takeoff in singles too.
I'm always a bit appalled when someone can't tell me their "plan".
Had two CFIs who required briefings and or at least a discussion about where the aircraft was going to go if the engine quit below 500' AGL (move up or down as necessary for all conditions) and above. Accounting for wind, known obstacles, calculated or known aircraft performance numbers, etc.
It's Airmanship. Know the plan, fly the plan. Don't be tempted into doing something that is higher-risk or even guaranteed to kill you. (The "Impossible Turn"...etc.)
Yet most IFR pilots will still happily cruise along at 4,000 ft even if they could cruise along at 15,000 ft (assume unpressurized piston aircraft). At 15,000 ft you have more altitude. You also need oxygen, you may or may not have the power to be up there comfortably, your engine(s) may not be as happy, you end up with headwinds...
Lots of reasons why flying low may make sense.
There's a big difference between cutting it close and the old "you can't have too much fuel" statement.It is more of of don't cut it close phrase. Most all of us know someone who has died b/c fuel starvation
There have been many accidents which could have been avoided if the airplane was lighter, and one of the ways to make it lighter is to carry less fuel. Carrying less fuel is at least as good an option as kicking someone off the boat. You just can't fly as far.How many do you know who died b/c they had to much.
I thought about this thread this morning when tower asked us, "Can you depart from Foxtrot or do you need the full length?"
In case you are curious we departed from Foxtrot.
I thought about this thread this morning when tower asked us, "Can you depart from Foxtrot or do you need the full length?"
In case you are curious we departed from Foxtrot.
Yet most IFR pilots will still happily cruise along at 4,000 ft even if they could cruise along at 15,000 ft (assume unpressurized piston aircraft). At 15,000 ft you have more altitude. You also need oxygen, you may or may not have the power to be up there comfortably, your engine(s) may not be as happy, you end up with headwinds...
Lots of reasons why flying low may make sense.
I just saw this thread and I don't feel like reading 4 pages of responses so what I have to say may have already been said...
...while talk of RWY length and TO distance is fine...what's not being said is what if you have pax? If it's just me and a pilot rated pax or two...no matter the loading, I may request the intersection departure. Yet if I have pax who either are paying and/or not familiar with flying in small planes, I'm using the full length. Their comfort supercedes my convenience.
I thought about this thread this morning when tower asked us, "Can you depart from Foxtrot or do you need the full length?"
In case you are curious we departed from Foxtrot.