The A2A Simulations Community

Just stumbled across this video. Have a look and see what stands out to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkwoALe9X3E

_________________
Erik Haugan Aasland,

Arendal, Norway
(Homebase: Kristiansand Lufthavn, Kjevik (ENCN)

All the Accusim-planes are in my hangar, but they aren't sitting long enough for their engines to cool much before next flight!

Yes he didn't pull up the flaps, but his text description pointed a few issues -

1) I don't care what EASA or CAA says - you should use any and all paved surface available for your takeoff. Period. Full stop. I dare an inspector to try and violate a pilot on that one. There's a reason the FAA doesn't do taxiways like that - it confuses pilots and makes them think that it's "bad". Not only that, but the FAA actually says that a taxiway MAY be used as a runway if the need arises and it's safe to do so. It's something that came up in a WINGS program a few months ago where there was an accident where an airplane tried to land with a crosswind that exceeded the demonstrated crosswind component for the aircraft. The airplane ended up dragging a wingtip and tumbling, killing all 3 aboard. The airport had a long taxiway that was almost directly into the wind and there were no other aircraft active on the field at the time. Both the FAA and NTSB noted that in their investigation and the FAA rep giving the talk reminded us that use of a taxiway is acceptable as long as we're doing so safely, even at a controlled airport as long as that's what the tower has cleared you to do. That's why taxiways are used during runway construction so often too. They're frankly overbuilt for their normal use and so can stand a little bit of abuse for short periods of time without doing any significant damage.

2) The checklist thing is something I still don't understand. There are memory items and then there's the printed checklist. You run the memory items then CHECK them with the checklist. That simple. There is not a professional pilot in the world who doesn't use a printed checklist, so why would any competent instructor train pilots differently? Whether you plan to become a professional pilot or not, you should always operate professionally because the airlines have expended a lot of money and blood to figure out a lot of these things and it will only help you when things go sideways.

_________________

I agree on the displaced threshold. Useful - use it!

Did you listen to the bad radio communication between the pilot and the tower? That wast the first part that raised my hackles, and I found myself sitting on the edge of my seat. There was no clear take off clearance or specified runway, nor did he read back one. This may be because of a small and "familiar" family of users of the field, but it sounds sloppy and, down the line, dangerous trend if that is the case.

The flap thing is a minor issue as long as he can't overspeed with the flaps down, though the use of a checklist after memory items are done is a no-brainer.

_________________
Erik Haugan Aasland,

Arendal, Norway
(Homebase: Kristiansand Lufthavn, Kjevik (ENCN)

All the Accusim-planes are in my hangar, but they aren't sitting long enough for their engines to cool much before next flight!

BTW, the airport I learned to fly at N07 has that same taxiway leading into a runway layout. It is much shorter than the one in this video, but still not a displaced threshold and technically not permitted to be used for takeoff and landing. That said, everyone (wisely) uses it as runway 19 is relatively short with tall trees at the far end.

Not using checklists is madness. I can not understand how anyone would be taught not to use them and depend on memory. All risk and no reward!

_________________
Flight Simmer since 1983. Private Pilot
Paramus Flying Club http://www.flyingclub.org

What? Landing on taxiways? Heresy, I say, heresy!

All seriousness aside, many, many years ago (1965), I was working at Half Moon Bay Airport for flying time. Two days of pumping gas, sweeping the hangar, and stripping paint from wings got me a half hour lesson. It was a designated fly day for me, and I was eagerly awaiting my flight. Oh no! The damn fog was coming in. My usual instructor was nowhere to be seen. Frank Sylvestri, the Chief Pilot and owner of the flight school, told me to go out and pre-flight the unlucky Cessna 150. I checked the airplane while he smoked his cigarette. The fog was moving in. Mr. Sylvestri (that was how I addressed him back then - either that or "sir") announced that we would be doing touch and goes for this flight. I got the drift that this was a sort of check ride. Off we went from RWY 12. I had that touch and go thing pretty well dialed in. The fog kept getting closer to the runway. Each time I expected him to say this was a full stop landing. Finally he told me we'd go around one more time. KHAF has a left-hand pattern on RWY 12, so we were flying toward the hills, and the fog was coming in from the coast. This time, as I turned final, the end of RWY 12 was obscured by fog. Mr. Sylvestri said, "Better put her down on the taxi way." That's exactly what I did. No problem. It felt great!

Seeya
ATB

_________________

Remember this is in the UK, with the air to ground service, the “tower” don’t tell pilots what to do, tower only tells pilots of traffic that he knows of. So after receiving the info that the other aircraft has vacated the runway, our pilot Jon announces his takeoff. But yes, he did forget the his flaps

_________________
Kind Regards
Tomas

Accu-Sim aircraft in my hangar:
C172, C182, P51 Civ, P51 Mil, B17, Spitfire, P47, B377 COTS,
J3 Cub, T6, Connie, P-40, V35B

Yeah, that sounded rather similar to AFIS airfields around here. I understand the differences from tower services has lead into some confusion among professionals as well, who don't usually go to such airports. A little gotcha for charter pilots for instance.

In EASA, I read it so that it is left into discretion of the aerodrome keeper to decide about any limitations in taxiing and/or takeoff and run-up areas. They may need to do so for reasons which include noise and FOD issues.

For EGTR, it is specifically mentioned in the AIS that "128 m paved area to the east of threshold 26 is not to be used for takeoff and landing." One ought to respect that. Of course, they likely don't sue you or anything if you mistake once!

-Esa

You are correct that the discretion of designation is left to the aerodrome operator, it's the same in the US, however here the FAA also interprets such "designations" as more suggestion than actual enforceable limitations. If you feel that you need the pavement, then it's left to the pilot's discretion and no one from the FAA will ever question it. Since he even states it in the description about his calculated takeoff distance without flaps being 650m on a 650m runway, then that in itself is reason for you to use that extra 128m (making the runway effectively 778m long) to ensure safe operation. Again, you're right that you should TRY to respect the operator and not use it if you don't need it, but if you're already at performance limit with no flaps (the normal takeoff condition for a Piper single like his), then the prudent and correct action would be to proceed as he did - use the "taxiway" as part of his takeoff area and increase his safety margins even with the use of flaps. I know that it's not a FAR 121 operation or equivalent EASA "Air Carrier" op, but still, you should always assume that you're going to get the worst performance out of your airplane to ensure that no matter what you've got plenty of margin built in if something does go wrong.

_________________

Yeah, I agree with your principle, Chris, though I feel it is rather simple in the end. If one feels needing more the runway that what is published, in particular if the additional pavement is explicitly excluded from being used for a given purpose, then one should not be flying into or out of that given place. The worst assumed performance should be within the 'officially' available playground limits, including one's own added margins. If the hall rules don't meet your league, then use some other, as someone has noted.

In this specific case, the opposite end of the runway has a public footpath crossing the paved area short of the threshold, that paved area itself turning out to be outside the designated aerodrome area (information from AIS). Treating the respective remark of that 174 meters not being a "part of licensed aerodrome" a mere suggestion, and treating that pavement as LDA or TODA simply suggests bad planning. There usually are some reasons for limitations given in the remarks. Of course, arranged special conditions and emergencies can use these areas at will, though with 100 % assumed responsibility.

At best, I'd treat the non-allocated excess runway like a fuel reserve: thou shall not violate it.

-Esa

And my response would be the same as the FAA's - then fix the airport design. If it's an obstacle that causes issues (like that walking path) then you place a blast fence along the danger area and add signage, then displace the threshold if needed, but the takeoff area is unchanged.

As I said, his calculations said he would make it in the worst conditions (barely). As such, with flaps, he had plenty of performance available for the operation, so there was no question. However, the one of first things the AAIB Investigator would ask when he got to the scene of the accident after something goes wrong and he crashes is - did he use all the available resources at his disposal and if not, would they have prevented the accident or made it less severe? If the crash ended up with him running off the end of the runway and into the perimeter fence, that 170+ meters may have been the difference.

_________________

In this case, the use of that runway section he started the takeoff is simply disallowed, for whatever reasons, in the AIS. He was correct to admit that as a mistake. Perhaps not a big deal, but if the folks who run things on the airfield notice that the written instruction is continuously being violated, they will probably ask one to stop doing that, perhaps nicely at first.

The designated runway area is what it is, and one must fit into that (or coordinate the exceptions, if needed). Not everything in aviation will crash and burn, if every possible stretch for some added margin here or there is not exploited. At some point it turns counterproductive in what comes to the big picture. Using perceived added safety like a Nazi card to justify ignoring the common play rules given by the aerodrome is not helpful in sustaining such airfields, nor too operationally professional either. Of course, nothing prevents one of having a discussion with the airfield keeper about the reasoning behind the "limitation", and of possible exceptions. It may even turn out that this pavement is taken out of takeoff/landing use for safety reasons in the first place. As is, the paved area not counted into takeoff distance available is not a resource in pilot's disposal, and his planning should account for that.

Whether the airfield layout is sub-optimal, is another question. For historical reasons, many GA airfields in Europe are simply what they are, and many are of endangered species as well. Even worse than the actual layout issues, sometimes the best ways to fly operationally are prohibited by noise abatement reasons, as enforced by the airfield's environmental permit. Basically a single angry landlord having a small cottage he doesn't even stay in but once a year several kilometers away from the airfield can cause serious problems for the flying community, if he wishes to do so. Far more ridiculous situations than those related to the actual airfield and its immediate surroundings, they are yet another reason why pilots should try to fit into the world around the best they can.

In all such cases, both inside the airfield perimeters and outside of it, playing the game by the expected rules makes a good starting point, even if they are not always directly enforced. One could argue as well that if there weren't this noise abatement procedure in place, he would have had more mental capacity available into things related to the airplane's operation, and likely would have noticed that his flaps were down sooner. But like the runway limitations, the noise abatement is there, like it or not.

-Esa

I agree that you play by the rules when you can, but at the same time, if you are in a situation where you need to deviate, then you need to be prepared to do it and not let fear of repricussions keep you from doing it (and result in a mishap). Again, I agree that the aerodrome operator can pretty much do whatever they want ("it's their place, if you don't like it - go elsewhere" and all that), but at the same time, when a pilot sits there and says on one end that his performance calculations said that without flaps the runway was barely enough and thus he used flaps to ensure sufficient performance; then starts his takeoff roll before the threshold and tells everyone that he was wrong (full stop) plus the other things discussed above, it shows a lack of proper risk management training for this pilot and puts out a contradictory statement to the public. What I mean by contradictory is that on one hand he's saying that he's doing the proper safety checks (performance calculations) however he's saying that not considering using the whole available pavement to ensure he can operate safely without introducing other safety issues around him is right as well. Again - it's not like he's always departing this runway from the "taxiway". He did so this time when it may have been actually prudent as to ensure all other safety requirements were met (including the noise abatement procedure), even if it wasn't a conscious decision. To then say that was a mistake (full stop) without couching that statement with the discussion of why it might be a good idea to use it in certain circumstances, is where the lack of proper risk management training comes in, and where I have my problem. This is the kind of narrow thinking that has gotten many pilots killed and is a big part of the high GA accident rate in the United States (that being runway excursions where other options were available to ensure safe operation).

_________________

Precisely, but one ought not to plan for deviating from the rules. Sometimes the final planned figures show zero remaining (unused) allowable margins, and commercial aviation included, it is an okay situation. One only needs to recognize that now one's doing what one has been training for, if excrement hit the fan.

And I agree as well. But the pilot must be comfortable with his performance calculations. One must not expect to be allowed to disobey instructions for his own comfort, but must apply his own personal comfort margins to the given, official runway distance available.

There have been several serious incidents where, in cases, widebody airlines having hundreds of people onboard have smacked down some runway end lights for the crew having mistaken their performance figures by inputting a typo worth of 100 tons in one instance (Emirates in Melbourne, if I recall). Should we prohibit reduced power takeoffs for airliners as well? What about intersection takeoffs? Both of these knowingly reduce the safety margins. But given the benefits, they only bring in an acceptable risk, that can and should be treated via channels of training and awareness. I don't see how GA planning decision should be any different. One shouldn't see these occasional added pavement areas much higher than a 737 captain should see the RESA.

The use of reduced power or an intersection for takeoff are legitimate choices, in the end. Using non-ASDA RESA for added climb performance (by increasing V1, if ASDA-critical) is not.

-Esa

Many people mix up procedures and checklists, indeed, and either use a checklist as a procedure to be followed step-by-step instead of using flows, or memorize it as if it were a procedure.

Not really the case of Flying Reporter though, and he has a point, he was told to do that for one of the most busy phases of the flight (the approach and especially before landing would be even more so IMHO) and it could even be dangerous to start reading a checklist at that moment. I'm not entirely sure what the most appropriate is, but I would still stick with the written checklist because being busy, or even having any unexpected event can easily make you forget one item of the list.

Since he's one of those people relying on a tablet and who knows what other gadgets attached to the yoke, he could have an audio checklist assistant as a lesser evil.

_________________

System specs: Win7 x64 | CPU: i7-4770K | RAM: 16 GB | GPU: GTX 980 Ti 6 GB | Thrustmaster HOTAS | Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals

I rarely see or hear of procedures/flows and checklists being mixed up being a factor in accidents. It's the base training of the pilot or their decision that they "don't need" a checklist becuase they've got them memorized that lead to things being missed that start, contribute to, or are the final link in the accident chain. Confusing a checklist item for a flow in itself will only make the reaction time different because a flow is still backed up by a checklist when it's done, and as long as the checklist is used as designed, you'll still catch any mistakes. In this case, he admits he wasn't taught to do this, and that's what caused the issue. The other thing I've seen a lot and really like is that more and more pilots are being taught to verbalize their flows as well even when alone as a technique to help keep from missing items.

_________________