Midfield Takeoffs

IAD: Cessna 4FR would you like an intersection takeoff at Y3, 4500 feet remaining.
4FR: Affirmative.
IAD: Navion 27K would you like the intersection, 4500 feet remaining.
27K: Affirmative.
(slight pause)
IAD: Cessna 4FR, looks like there's really only 4000 feet remaining can you take that.
4FR: Affirmative.
IAD: Navion 27K can you take 4000'
27K: I only need 850 feet.
 
Depends... I operate my 310 from 3700ft routinely. Typical take off roll is about 600 ft if I'm light, heavy is about 1200.
At light weight, I will have the gear in the Wells and at nearly pattern altitude by the end of the runway. That's a normal departure. Max effort is a good bit less.

Are there obstructions? What's the temp/density altitude? All this information plays into a decision like that. 2000ft paved is my limit.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
As one who's had an engine quit just after takeoff and barely skidded to a stop in the weeds past the end of the runway just before a ditch... I'll take the whole runway, thank you very much.

OTOH, if you really know your plane's performance and how much altitude you need for the impossible turn, an intersection departure might actually be safer if the runway is long enough...
 
I've seen a couple of airplane's that were wrecked because the pilots didn't think about using something off the end of the runway for stopping instead of trying to force something to happen within the runway length that wasn't possible.
 
KSDM has a 7000 foot runway, and I seldom use the whole length when they're departing West. I generally takeoff from the intersection with C. It's about 5,000ft.

KDVT has their 8,200, and I often take off from C3, as C1 and C2 stack up with training flights.
 
Whats the difference between a mid field takeoff and a touch n go? It wouldn’t be my first choice, but I don’t think it is much more inherently risky. Maybe they were just doing an actual short field demo?
 
Touch and goes - when you absolutely positively must combine two of flying’s most dangerous phases into one.

Personally stopped doing them after my Private training.....but to each his own.
 
My CFI never had me do Touch & Go's until a way after solo. He said it was my choice afterwards but kinda gave me that funny look like "Whatever floats your boat, your call you are PIC.".

On my first few cross countries I would stop by my home base, then a much shorter and narrower runway to me. I think I did like 1 Touch & Go and never have again. I just feel that by the time I land, get all 40deg (electric) flaps in, get the throttle in and carb heat off there's half the runway remaining. I have taxied the runway from the halfway point before...sure seems awful short. Then again I have landed and taken off on strips down to about 2300x50 and wasn't really that bothered....rather "focused" :)

I was pretty impressed when @WannFly was right ahead of me at Omaha Intl and declined a intersection departure. I probably would have taken it and would have added some pressure for him to do the same. It was a long runway and long taxi but not much traffic...excellent choice dude!. I was used to doing 4000ft intersection departures on a 5000ft runway during training. But now I am very reluctant to take those and never on a first takeoff of the day, after long taxi during prime carb ice conditions or with any obstacles to clear at the end.
 
I still remember this conversation that occurred at the end of my private checkride 37 years ago:

Examiner: You should go out and work on your touch and goes some.
Me: The school doesn't let us do touch and goes solo.
Examiner: That's for student pilots. You've got your license now.

It was the first indication that I had passed the checkride.
 
I fly from a 9000 ft runway and always take full length. Controllers know it and they have stopped offering me intersection departure with one exception, runway 36 I will take intersection departure. It’s still close to 7000 feet and nothing on the departure end apart from farm fields. That’s my personal minimums and I stick to it. I did touch and goes on my primary training, still do it once in a while, prefer stop and go
 
OkieFlyer said:
Moments ago, one of the nearby university trainers landed at my local field, as they often do. They generally fly Piper Warriors, and they use our sleepy field for practice often.

Today, the trainee landed normally and came to a complete stop pretty much dead on the middle of the runway. They generally do a U-turn and taxi back for another go, but this time they throttled up and launched from midfield with only 1500 feet of asphalt in front of them, out of an available 3000'.

It's cold today, and it's flat here, so that is enough runway for a lightly loaded Warrior doing a max performance takeoff, but it struck me as a fairly dumb thing to do. I've done it more than once on the 5000' runway where I trained and could land and still have 3500-4000 of runway, but I can't say I've ever intentionally left myself only 1500' of runway to use from a dead stop. That's not much room for error, especially for a bird that's not exactly a short field performance machine. Anyway, I'm not really a "by the book" kind of guy, but it seems irresponsible to me for a flight school to allow that. But heck, no harm no foul, I guess.

What say you?
Click to expand...

Given the likely density alritude, no flaps, aircraft weight, headwind, hard surface runway, flat grade, and no obstacles, the ground roll safety margin was >50%. I do not see a significant safety issue.
 
You can take the "most conservative answer" mantra to just about any end you want to, but it doesn't mean that less conservative answers are too risky or wrong. As always, airmanship means weighing all of the operational and safety factors and making a smart decision (which is not always the most conservative decision).

Time is a consideration for a flight school aircraft, especially 141 schools with a structured syllabus. The syllabus has a number of events that have to be completed in order for that particular flight to be complete, and there is a finite amount of time on the schedule for that aircraft, that instructor, and that student for those events on that day.

So, exiting the runway and taxiing back for full length is time spent that may not be time best utilized for that airplane and that crew on that day.
 
wrbix said:
Touch and goes -
Click to expand...


A properly executed T& G requires that the (flying) airplane be landed properly, and promptly reconfigured for a take-off immediately: the mixture, boost pump, and prop (if so equipped) should already be up, so it's a matter of throttle, flap retraction, carb heat (if so equipped), and re-trimming. At the same time, the pilot must scan the engine instruments to verify that take-off power is being developed, Granted, it happens quickly, but it represents a learn-able skill set for those so inclined to develop it. For those who might not like the pressure of a reconfiguration "on the fly," full-stop is an entirely acceptable solution. I like T & G for the time savings (as in: maximizing practice per flying hour).

I understand the limitations of the maneuver, and I've certainly seen it practiced as a Crash and Dash, unfortunately. Not all desire to, or are capable of, integrating these two potentially dangerous flight maneuvers. The pilot's judgement and decision-making are the balance.
 
Last edited:
I’ll take a taxiway a few hundred feet short of the end of the runway if it’s over 5000’, and it helps with spacing, but otherwise I want it all.

I don’t see the issue with touch and goes, I think they aren’t any more dangerous than a go round, and are good practice for the same. It’s not the same as an intersection departure unless you routinely taxi onto a runway at 35-40 knots......or can’t land your touch and go on the numbers.
 
Two memories from the same fight:

1) On my first student XC, my instructor had me have someone at both FBOs sign my logbook. I wondered if this was to make sure I did full stop landings.

2) After my first stop and logbook entry, I was taxiing behind a twin full of parachute jumpers. He suddenly cut onto the runway midfield and took off DOWNWIND. I came to a full stop and probably did not take a breath before that idiot took off with less than 300’ remaining.

Yep, I’ve been conservative ever since; no apologies. Probably was the best thing I could’ve experienced.
 
Can't say that I've ever taken off from less than the full length of runway being available. Sometimes that's been 2000 feet, other times it's been significantly more, but I always have taken off with the full length available. That's from a standing start. T&Gs have been standard since day one for me. Yes, I understand the arguments in this thread, but if the runway isn't long enough for a T&G then it's a stop, back taxi to the end and start again. With 5500 feet (more or less) and at 200 MSL my home drome is not a problem for T&Gs, but full stop landings (especially for night currency) are a stop, take the next exit, taxi back to the start and go again deal. In other words, it depends...
 
I’ve only done an intersection departure twice at RVS and was with an instructor the first time, lightly loaded C172R. However, that still leaves 2,500 ft or so, which on a below std temp day was no factor at all. I still wouldn’t make a request for it, it had just been offered to hop in front of a few flight school jockeys clogging up the run-up area awaiting clearances.

I don’t recall there being any restrictions from my flight school/FBO about intersection departures, but it wouldn’t surprise me if a 141 school like the University has those limitations in place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I have no problem doing a midfield takeoff on a sufficiently long runway but when I say sufficiently long I mean it has close to twice the runway I think I need. I wouldn't have done it in the case OP described, not enough margin. However at a big airport with an 8000' runway say in a pa-28 it just seems stupid to taxi an extra mile, especially at a busy controlled field, and wait when I can just pull into an intersection in front of me with 3,000 remaining and go.
 
Kansas Flyer said:
I departed from midfield once. Of course that was at Salina with a 12,000 ft runway.
Click to expand...
I was in a military aero club and the club was on the south end of the ramp. With south winds we had to taxi the entire length of the ramp, 2 miles to the north end for departure to the south. Hot summer days were brutal to taxi. 1/2 way there we would have to turn the Mooney around and face the wind to cool the engine. It would overheat during taxi with the tailwind.
 
Skip Miller said:
Marlboro MA 9B1 is in the process of closing. (Owner passed away, hadn't made any money in years.) One runway of 1659 feet - Undoubtedly that kept usage down. I visited once, to visit a nearby relative. With three up in an Archer, I had no problem on departure but those trees were uncomfortably close below us.

But my friend who got his ASEL cert there, was a very good pilot at spot landings! So good with the bad. No midfield takeoffs there!

Sorry to see it go. I understand it may be turned into elderly housing... -Skip
Click to expand...
I remember flying into there in the 70s during training. It’s sad to see those old airports close.

Anyone remember Tew-Mac and their narrow runway?
 
Rgbeard said:
I guess this isn't the audience with which to bring up midfield landings? I knew a guy with an MU-2........
Click to expand...
Landing south on a 10,000 ft plus runway with the aero club at the south end. We always told tower, “landing long”.
 
WannFly said:
I fly from a 9000 ft runway and always take full length. Controllers know it and they have stopped offering me intersection departure with one exception, runway 36 I will take intersection departure. It’s still close to 7000 feet and nothing on the departure end apart from farm fields. That’s my personal minimums and I stick to it. I did touch and goes on my primary training, still do it once in a while, prefer stop and go
Click to expand...

Eh? How much runway u got at these intersections?
 
OkieFlyer said:
Moments ago, one of the nearby university trainers landed at my local field, as they often do. They generally fly Piper Warriors, and they use our sleepy field for practice often.

Today, the trainee landed normally and came to a complete stop pretty much dead on the middle of the runway. They generally do a U-turn and taxi back for another go, but this time they throttled up and launched from midfield with only 1500 feet of asphalt in front of them, out of an available 3000'.

It's cold today, and it's flat here, so that is enough runway for a lightly loaded Warrior doing a max performance takeoff, but it struck me as a fairly dumb thing to do. I've done it more than once on the 5000' runway where I trained and could land and still have 3500-4000 of runway, but I can't say I've ever intentionally left myself only 1500' of runway to use from a dead stop. That's not much room for error, especially for a bird that's not exactly a short field performance machine. Anyway, I'm not really a "by the book" kind of guy, but it seems irresponsible to me for a flight school to allow that. But heck, no harm no foul, I guess.

What say you?
Click to expand...

My buddy has a 1200 foot runway at his house. That is all he has on each takeoff and landing. If the plane can do it I guess it is fine.
 
BillTIZ said:
Landing south on a 10,000 ft plus runway with the aero club at the south end. We always told tower, “landing long”.
Click to expand...

That is why I love this forum. When flying to our beach property, I’m landing a Grumman Tiger on a 10,000 ft runway. The FBO is just past the other end of the most common used runway. I land and taxi over a mile and a half every time. I suddenly feel stupid, but I’ve never even considered/realized I could ask tower to allow me land long..... Still a newbie dang it...
 
cowman said:
I have no problem doing a midfield takeoff on a sufficiently long runway but when I say sufficiently long I mean it has close to twice the runway I think I need. I wouldn't have done it in the case OP described, not enough margin. However at a big airport with an 8000' runway say in a pa-28 it just seems stupid to taxi an extra mile, especially at a busy controlled field, and wait when I can just pull into an intersection in front of me with 3,000 remaining and go.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I only "need" 500 ft in the 182. 1500 ft is beyond plenty if that's all there is. Choosing to use the last 1500 instead of the first 1500 for a max performance takeoff just seems like a "hey, look what I can do" kind of thing. Particularly when you are the only son of a gun within sight of the runway in BF, E.

Here's the other thing: If you'll notice in the original story, on this particular stop and go scenario, the "stop" portion took 1500 of the 3000 ft. If it took me 1500 ft to stop a Warrior, I'm probably not going to feel great about leaving that much runway behind for the "go" portion. I could easily get my 172 rolled out and exit at the 1000' taxiway without much affort as a trainee. This cat took a solid 1500, so I'm guessing he or she hasn't exactly mastered the craft to a point that would warrant feeling safe doing a midfield launch from that field. Again, it all depends as others have said. I don't think students should be taught this way, however. Just my opinion.
 
TheFB said:
That is why I love this forum. When flying to our beach property, I’m landing a Grumman Tiger on a 10,000 ft runway. The FBO is just past the other end of the most common used runway. I land and taxi over a mile and a half every time. I suddenly feel stupid, but I’ve never even considered/realized I could ask tower to allow me land long..... Still a newbie dang it...
Click to expand...
Just curious...why do you have to "ask" to land long. When cleared to land isn't the entire runway yours? You could probably tell them your intention but my understanding is that every foot of that runway is yours while you are landing. Landing 5000ft long on a 10,000ft runway should be no issue at all. Curious anyways...never have done it but always figured I could if I wanted to. And would if I was landing after big guy with wake turbulence.
 
I don’t know. I think you are correct there is no regulation. I just guess I would tell them as a courtesy so they don’t think I’m going around.
 
TheFB said:
I don’t know. I think you are correct there is no regulation. I just guess I would tell them as a courtesy so they don’t think I’m going around.
Click to expand...

Same here, picked it up from my first CFI , but never really questioned if I needed the permission
 
TheFB said:
That is why I love this forum. When flying to our beach property, I’m landing a Grumman Tiger on a 10,000 ft runway. The FBO is just past the other end of the most common used runway. I land and taxi over a mile and a half every time. I suddenly feel stupid, but I’ve never even considered/realized I could ask tower to allow me land long..... Still a newbie dang it...
Click to expand...

Just land long. As far as the tower knows, you just suck at landing. :D


Unless they want you to expedite, of course.
 
TheFB said:
That is why I love this forum. When flying to our beach property, I’m landing a Grumman Tiger on a 10,000 ft runway. The FBO is just past the other end of the most common used runway. I land and taxi over a mile and a half every time. I suddenly feel stupid, but I’ve never even considered/realized I could ask tower to allow me land long..... Still a newbie dang it...
Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about ECP. I land long on 16 all the time in the Pilatus. Not only is it a long taxi, but you might have to wait a while for opposite direction traffic taxiing out for departure, unless of course they accept an intersection departure, which gets us back to the original topic. :)
 
Sinistar said:
Just curious...why do you have to "ask" to land long. When cleared to land isn't the entire runway yours? You could probably tell them your intention but my understanding is that every foot of that runway is yours while you are landing. Landing 5000ft long on a 10,000ft runway should be no issue at all. Curious anyways...never have done it but always figured I could if I wanted to. And would if I was landing after big guy with wake turbulence.
Click to expand...
Etiquette. I’m guessing the tracon and tower are spacing aircraft assuming a reasonably quick exit. An unauthorized long landing, while not a violation of any sort, may cause the aircraft behind you to go around.
 
The place I got my commercial rating threw down a rule one day that prohibited touch and goes, and also prohibited ANY type of reconfiguration - because someone at a far away airport retracted the gear instead of flaps.

Long landing.
Also many years ago when landing at KBFI it was common for me to request a "short approach, long landing" which allowed me to expedite a landing and turn off to the last exit and avoid 90% of the taxiing.

I guess maybe it was legal without asking but avoided any "WTF?, Over" from the tower.

At my home airport I get out in my Citabria to beat up the pattern. My closed traffic request is mostly interpreted as touch and goes. I get plenty of full stops for proficiency and it can be busy in the pattern.

So I do wheel landings almost to a full stop, which is a hell of a lot harder than a stop and go because you can't take your eyes off the nose of the plane at all.
 
Dave Theisen said:
I assume you are talking about ECP. I land long on 16 all the time in the Pilatus. Not only is it a long taxi, but you might have to wait a while for opposite direction traffic taxiing out for departure, unless of course they accept an intersection departure, which gets us back to the original topic. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, KECP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top