Accelerate/Stop Question

[Lead Sled]

Singlecoil...

I've done my share of flying in Alaska and Canada and I've been there and done that when it comes to what you're talking about. A wise pilot once said, "What's legal isn't always safe and what's safe ain't always legal..." The point remains, engines nowadays seldom fail and you can get a way with certain practices for a long, long time but if you routinely operate "on the back side of the curve" so to speak, you will get bit if and when it happens to you. In reality, you seldom see reputable operators demand this type of operation from their flight crews. The typical scenario involves a less than financially stable company and a young pilot - eager to build up his flight time. We at one time or another were all in that same boat.

Flyinsocal...

If you're "fired for cause" I would dare say that you're not working for a company that could be considered as a long-term career position. If you were to have a problem, I'm sure that your boss whould run right up to the FAA's office and say, "Don't blame him, I told him to do it." (Yeah right. He'll leave you to hang all by your self.) There will come a point in your career when you will refuse to fly operations like that. Whether it comes sooner or later depends upon you.

Lead Sled

 

[350DRIVER]

FAR 135.361, FAR 135.367.

" unless it is possible to stop the airplane safely on the runway, as shown by the accelerate-stop distance data"



3 5 0

 

[Singlecoil]

350, we're not talking about "large transport category airplanes". We're talking about small, non-transport category airplanes like KingAir's, 402's etc. The relevant reg is 135.399, which makes no mention of accelerate stop, only takeoff and landing.

 

[350DRIVER]

caught that too late


3 5 0

 

[labbats]

If I was in the original poster's situation, I would consider the single engine performance for that day at that field. Then I would study the terrain around it. If I found I could safely climb at say, 150 fpm with an engine loss, but there are only some 50' high trees in the area, and I could manuever back to the runway, then I would go.

Accelerate-Stop is assuming brand new engines, brakes, perfect reaction time, etc. It's unrealistic anyhow. I suppose the same could be said for SE climb, but I would think it comes closer to the truth in that scenario.

 

[avbug]

You should always consider the reduced performance applicable to an engine out. Regardless of the runway or surrounding terrain.

You're legal to depart under the situation given. Accelerate stop asumes an engine failure at V1. A failure or a reason to stop that occurs sooner than V1 means a shorter actual accelerate-stop distance.

Convsersely, if it's safety you'e concerned about, most likely your accelerate-go distance will be longer, especially for the aircraft you've indicated. If you lose an engine and attempt to go, you're out of luck if you've predicated on just meeting accelerate-stop criteria. If you're going to seriously consider reduced climb performance based on an engine-out, then you MUST consider accelerate-go criteria...after all, if you're going to be climbing on one engine, then obviously you are not stopping.

The truth is that many times you may be faced with situations operationally in which you don't have 12,000' of runway to use, and you won't have the performance to meet all of the Part 25 criteria you're accustomed to meeting under Part 121. Not gonna happen. You then need decide if you're going to do the job, or not.

I routinely operate in one of my jobs in situations that use all the runway, or even a little more in some cases. V1 occurs as you taxi onto the runway...after that, you're going. Period. Lose an engine, and life gets tough, no matter how you slice it. That's part of the job. You must decide what you can and cannot accept, and live within those means.

You indicated that "waiting for temperature to drop is not an option." It's always an option. I've been in situations in which the passenger arrived, and said he wanted to depart at eleven o' clock, and by the way, we'll be bringing two extra people, and...so on. Running performance in that airplane, I looked at the weather, the rate at which it was warming up and told the passenger fine, but you won't be departing at eleven o clock. It's going to be after six tonight when the temperature is less. Or you can go now. What will it be?

If the charter is predicated on a specific time and can't go at any other time, and you can't live or operate with the temperature, then clearly you can't take the flight.

Under Part 135, you needn't observe accelerate stop distance in a Part 23 airplane...but you do need to observe takeoff distance.

Part of the utility of a King Air is the ability to go into small places and stop in short distances, and then come back out of them. That's part of the reason it's being used. To be employed in an airplane that is featured because of these capabilities, you need to be able and willing to take advantage of them.

You also need to be able and willing to set your own limitations, and not budge from them. More than a few times I have stopped short of a destination in a light airplane to get a hotel, due to weather or other conditions that were beyond my own personal limitations set. I won't go beyond them. If an employer doesn't like it, he can find a new pilot. I've refused to fly aircraft, and refused trips, even under heavy pressure from employers, clients, etc. I once turned back a flight with a medical team on board, enroute to pick up a waiting heart during the flight as conditions changed. I've refused to deliver retardant to a fire, or to put the airplane into situations when clients, employers, agencies, or others demanded it be put, and I will do so again. Don't you do any less.

Do the math before the employer accepts the flight. Tell the employer you can't do it. Tell the employer that it's beyond the performance limitations of the airplane. Yes, it can be done when everything is working, but we don't plan flights with the idea that everything will be working. We plan for emergencies, failures, etc. That's what we do. Carrying passengers off of a field means that you needn't take chances.

You indicated that reducing takeoff weight won't change your aircraft performance. Of course it will. Less weight reduces accelerate stop distances, takeoff distances, accelerate-go distances, and will ultimately reduce balanced field length where required or available. You may not see an appreciable distance change with a few pounds difference, but reduce that weight by a thousand pounds, and you'll see a difference.

 

[igneousy2]

I'd appreciate some comments on the following scenerio:

You are operating a King Air 90 under Part 91.

You are planning a flight to a runway 4200 feet long at an airport 3,500 MSL in the desert southwest - summertime temps.



Would you depart from a runway that was 20 feet longer than the ground roll? it's legal under part 91, would you depart IFR in 0/0?

balanced field length is a critical performance measure, if you deliberately disregarded available performance data it would be a slam dunk for the Feds to say you were reckless.

An old, wise pilot once told me..."The worst thing a company can do to you is fire you or make you quit, the worse thing the FAA can do to you is take your license away...then the company will fire you anyway"

Later

 

[Singlecoil]

Again, this is legal. Wise? That's up to you. Ever flown a single-engine airplane at night over mountains with passengers on a scheduled 135 flight? I have. It's also legal. I can't say that I'm not glad those days are over, though.

In the first example, the NTSB report would read something like, "Probable cause: The failure of the left engine and the insufficient runway length available for stopping or continuing the takeoff." If you didn't do anything wrong, I don't think they would fault you for flying out of a short strip, as long as you had takeoff ground roll/obstacle length available.

 

[igneousy2]

Again, this is legal. Wise? That's up to you. Ever flown a single-engine airplane at night over mountains with passengers on a scheduled 135 flight? I have. It's also legal. I can't say that I'm not glad those days are over, though.

In the first example, the NTSB report would read something like, "Probable cause: The failure of the left engine and the insufficient runway length available for stopping or continuing the takeoff." If you didn't do anything wrong, I don't think they would fault you for flying out of a short strip, as long as you had takeoff ground roll/obstacle length available.

The NTSB opinion will have as much impact on the Feds as doing a hula for the inspector, they don't care if the NTSB doesn't blame the pilot in BIG BOLD LETTERS, just the fact that their was "insufficient runway length available for stopping" is plenty of rope to hang a pilot with.

Later

 

[Lead Sled]

Like I said in a previous post, "no one is really going to care as long as everything goes well. But if there is an accident or incident and the FAA starts asking questions I’m sure that you will end up spending some “quality” one-on-one time with one of your friendly local feds. Among other things, the discussion would center around FAR 91.13 (Careless and Reckless Operation) and several other potential violations." The fact that "everyone does it" and/or "it never was a problem before" won't be a defense.

There is also one other potiential ramification that hasn't been discussed - what might happen to your insurance coverage when and if it is determined that you willfully and intentionally operated in a careless and reckless manner.

A true professional knows when to say no.

Lead Sled