[Dave W]

[ChampChump]

Nail on head every time.

Sunny Swift or Paul Bertorelli? No contest.

[ak7274]

Must be Paul, he wears lots of bars on his epaulletes even when flying his Cub.

[CherokeePete]

Sunny Swift or Paul Bertorelli? No contest.

I think we established that Sunny Swift (ironic initials) is more a "you shall follow orders or be shot" sort of character who probably normally replaces w's with v's when not wearing the stasi uniform.

[rdfb]

I was taught to turn crosswind at 500ft (height). When doing circuits with an instructor on an unusually long (for me) runway, I asked about when to turn crosswind. Should I wait for the end of the runway? I was told that turning at 500ft height was correct, regardless of runway length. Is this correct?

Can you see where I'm going with this? If the above is correct, then it seems to me that there's a limit to the length of useful runway ahead of you: if you expect to have enough runaway ahead of you to land on it at the point that you've turned crosswind, then is there any point in having more?

This of course assumes that you will land immediately if there are indications of a problem and you have enough runway to do so, instead of pushing on.

[Dave W]

It'd have to be a very long runway (or you're flying a fantastic climber, or have a very strong headwind) to be able to land ahead with sufficient runway left available from 500ft agl after takeoff.

I reckon the general concept in PB's video is true for the vast majority of cases

[Rob L]

Paul Bertorelli is always worth listening to.
He injects sensibility and common sense (and humour) into what are serious aviation lessons; I've been a fan of AvWeb for years.

Dave, you should post some of these links in the Student forum once in a while.

Rob

[chevvron]

Only takeoff mistake I made was in my Moni; the wheelbrake and airbrake were operated by the same lever.
You guessed it; lined up and stopped on the runway then tried to take off with the airbrake open!!

[Flyin'Dutch']

Great video as always. Thanks for sharing Dave!

[rf3flyer]

As a fresh PPL, departed Inverness in a southerly crosswind and was nearly rolled inverted in the club 152 by the roll off the hills to the South. One of my scariest and shortest flights ever.

Oh, and 'pitot covers'.

I have avoided both mistakes ever since.

[rdfb]

It'd have to be a very long runway (or you're flying a fantastic climber, or have a very strong headwind) to be able to land ahead with sufficient runway left available from 500ft agl after takeoff.

I thought it'd be easier than you think, so as a quick test I fired up X-Plane and gave it a go. I appreciate it's not the same as reality, but it's far easier than staring at performance charts and success would demonstrate that it's not out of the realms of possibility.

Conclusion: it appears possible and realistic to land straight ahead from 500ft AGL with runway remaining. I even had sufficient runway left to take off again. I did use a slip to lose height quickly, but didn't do anything outlandish I wouldn't attempt in real life. I did use a Vx climb which I wouldn't normally do, but for the purposes of this question, I think this is valid. This is with X-Plane 11's C172 from Liverpool (as an airport that has a flying school, so relevant for light aircraft pilots). The aircraft I fly has significantly better performance than this.

Liverpool Rwy 27 has ASDA 2162m, or 2071m from the Golf intersection which seems to be normal for GA departures. So back to my question: is it really necessary (and does it make any difference to safety) to insist on full runway length when this kind of intersection departure is offered, given that on a normal departure the aircraft would turn away before remaining runway runs out?

[Miscellaneous]

The aircraft I fly has significantly better performance than this.

Is that a pro or a con? If point of failure is determined by time under full power, rather than a specific height, would a 'better' performer not be higher, possibly much higher, after a given time making it more difficult to get back down on the remaining?

[rdfb]

The aircraft I fly has significantly better performance than this.

Is that a pro or a con? If point of failure is determined by time under full power, rather than a specific height, would a 'better' performer not be higher, possibly much higher, after a given time making it more difficult to get back down on the remaining?

It's a good question. My thinking is that we all accept some risk en-route based on the level we choose to fly and the terrain we choose to fly over. During take-off, height means options; at some height you'll always be able to circle back for the runway. What we'd like to mitigate by having as much runway length remaining as is useful is the outcome before we have that height.

My conclusion (but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise) is that when the runway is long enough to permit "land ahead" up to that height, it's worth ensuring - with a Vx climb if necessary. I'm uncertain what that height actually is - but if it's higher than a crosswind turn at 500 feet, then I don't understand the benefit of having more runway available than what is required to land ahead. If on the other hand you're departing from a strip and you don't have that luxury, then the usual Vy climb to minimise time spent low makes sense to me.

I should add that I'm certainly not speaking from experience here, and would like to learn from others. I would like properly laid out reasoning though, rather than just taking passed-down wisdom as a given.

[skydriller]

Conclusion: it appears possible and realistic to land straight ahead from 500ft AGL with runway remaining. I even had sufficient runway left to take off again.
....
Liverpool Rwy 27 has ASDA 2162m, or 2071m from the Golf intersection

Well duuurrr.. Thats over 2km of runway !!!
Of course you can land back on from 500ft, if you cant you have bigger problems.

My home airfield is 900m of grass. I reckon that up to 100ft im going into the hedge at the end. Over 100ft I'll make the first field, 300-400ft the one beyond that, and above 600ft Im on crosswind and will try to get back to the airfield. All wind adjustable, and as I mentioned elsewhere, up to around 300-400ft I doubt I will have time to think anything other than "nose down airspeed! Field ahead!"

Regards, SD..

[Miscellaneous]

My thinking is that we all accept some risk en-route based on the level we choose to fly and the terrain we choose to fly over.

Indeed. I think that's my point really. I don't in any way disagree with the video, it's simply fact backtracking gives more options. However, in practice how many light end GA pilots doing 99% of their flying from 500-800m grass strips are going to consider the risk of not backtracking not worth taking? Take Inverness as an example; when 23 is in use it is usual to enter the runway at the 11-29 intersection and take off from there. In doing so there is more runway behind than ahead. Most accept that risk.

During take-off, height means options; at some height you'll always be able to circle back for the runway. What we'd like to mitigate by having as much runway length remaining as is useful is the outcome before we have that height.

Mmm, the thread topic is landing on remaining. I'd suggest in this scenario the landing back option diminishes quite rapidly as height is gained.

My gut feel is that for typical strip flying any failure will have to be very early to make landing back a possibility. The higher the performance of the aircraft the less likely a land back is. There is a plethora of RV4 & RV8s, maybe some owners could crunch some numbers. Typically what height will an RV4 have climbed to after, say, 200m? What remaining distance would be required to get back down?