Runway Intersection Distances

[minitour]

Is there anywhere online I can get runway/taxiway intersection distances for t/o and landing...when using the southeast runway, I really hate going to the end because it sucks up Hobbs time...hoping I can get off by Charlie but I don't know the distances...
I'm assuming the A/FD has 'em but didn't know if I could just click and look or not

thanks all

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

and what airport would you be refering to?

 

[minitour]

Any of 'em...just kinda curious...I suppose I could just ask my FBO when I go out to my airport...just wondering in case I'm ever out at XYZ airport wondering if I can take the ABC intersection...one of those things that hits ya at 1:00am and you can't sleep until you know fer sure...

 

[minitour]

I think I worded this badly...
It isn't something that I need to know today, tomorrow, or anytime soon...just something I wondered if it was posted on a website like on aopa's site or anything like that...I know for a fact at YNG I can take the C or H1 interesections on 14 and be up in plenty of time (thats where I'm at now)...

I was just curious...kinda one of those things that hits you (or..me at least) at 1 am and you can't sleep until you find out for sure...just curious to find out if it was posted anywhere for preflight planning purposes in the distant future...

thanks anywho

 

[pilotman2105]

Land and Hold Short Operations section of the A/FD has runway distances for landing aircraft to the intersecting runway. Say for example that you were cleared to land runway 36, hold short of 9-27. The A/FD would tell you how much distance is available on runway 36 before you reach the intersection of 9-27.

On a side note, do not get into a habit of making intersection departures. While they are "safe," going to the end of a runway provides an extra measure of safety in that if you have an engine failure at 300 ft, you may be able to land on the last portion of a longer runway.

While these types of engine failures are not common, it's reason enough to think about it. The only time that I do an intersection departure is when ATC asks me if I can do one to help with traffic flow. Otherwise, I'll take the entire length.

 

[minitour]

Land and Hold Short Operations section of the A/FD has runway distances for landing aircraft to the intersecting runway....On a side note, do not get into a habit of making intersection departures. While they are "safe," going to the end of a runway provides an extra measure of safety in that if you have an engine failure at 300 ft, you may be able to land on the last portion of a longer runway...

Thanks for the info and the tip too...great safety tip...I guess an extra minute or two down the runway is worth it if I can avoid being a pile of aluminum in the trees at the departure end

good call

 

[jergar999]

The control tower can also provide usable runway lengths from taxiway and runway intersections.

 

[350DRIVER]

I have always requested the full runway distance for takeoff even if the airplane is capable of accepting an intersection departure. The more runway remaining the better in my opinion once airborne. Even in the larger aircraft, I have very rarely have requested or accepted the intersection departure unless at a large airport and certain things have been looked into before hand. You have a 9000 ft. + runway and accept the intersection departure which surely a C152 is capable of doing and loose the engine on departure (over the trees where a 180 back to the departure rwy cannot be made at the low alt) on the end, you will be kicking yourself wishing that you used full runway available since you could have put the aircraft right back down on that remaining rwy. Can you do it and do other pilots do it? Sure...., is it wise? That is a call that the PIC must make.

If all goes well and you are having a good day then no worries, bad day + engine loss and you may question your choice of accepting/requesting the intersection departure in a single engine aircraft.


3 5 0

 

[Timebuilder]

I will also recommend against intersection departures.

A couple of years ago, I was in the right seat for a ride-along and we took an intersection departure. As we rolled past the hold short line, I looked around to backup the pilot and saw a Baron who had been cleared from the end of the runway, bearing down on us. We stopped, and the embarassed controller apologized.

Obviously, it could have gone much worse.

The other side of the coin is to scan for other aircraft waiting to do just such an intersection departure when you are cleared from the end of the runway, and remember that those airplanes could move unexpectedly, just as we no doubt surprised that Baron driver.

 

[minitour]

very interesting

Seems like everyone here is in agreement with using the full length of the runway. Very interesting...I've only taken an intersection departure on 3 or 4 occasions and 2 of those were on "stage checks" with a different instructor...I think once was to make way for a 737 and buy us time for a runup...sounds like a real good idea though to take the whole length just in case...

Thanks to all that responded...great info!

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

I would mildly disagree about refusing intersection departures. If you are doing it because of time, I will agree it isn't worth it. But, sometimes it is safer to do an intersection departure than to use the full length.

For example, today I took off from the rwy 36 from the rwy 32 intersection. Why? The extra 500 ft weren't worth having on a 9k ft runway when tower was telling us to position and hold as soon as the landing aircraft was over the numbers (a busy day only made worse by construction on the 'GA runway').

My example is an anamoly (sp?) but do what is safest, not what is best for the wallet. Being $100 richer doesn't matter so much when you are dead (or have to pay for another aircraft).

 

[garf12]

All this makes me happy I am based at a small non towered airport where taxi time is very short. There are plenty of bigger airports in the area so I get my fair share of ATC radio practice.

 

[U-I pilot]

350 DRIVER and TIMEBUILDER:

Good points on the "why not" to take intersection departures.....Sadly, at my university no one thinks about stuff like this and students go through the program never thinking twice about taking that intersection takeoff on just about EVERY flight. (cause our ramp sits in the middle of the intersecting runways....)

These are things as a flight instructor I can culture my students on....

 

[350DRIVER]

These are things as a flight instructor I can culture my students on....

With your positive attitude and realizing what is going on, the negatives involved, etc, etc, I have no doubt that you will be successful in getting your point(s) across to your future students.


good luck with your CFI....

3 5 0

 

[Vector4fun]

Speaking from my controller experience, the only time an intersection departure is advantageous is when it avoids several runway crossings to get to the end. Then it might be justified from a "safety" standpoint. I work parallels now, and would generally prefer everyone go to the end, even the Champs and C-150s. I'll most often approve an intersection if requested, but don't offer them unless something really weird is going on. Some controllers I work with do offer them, though I don't have a clue why, except that it saves a bit of taxi. So what? The intersection departure will often have a wake turbulence delay, sometimes blocks the arrivals from exiting at that intersection, causes potential confusion of location, etc. etc.

I've had "pilots" tell me their airplanes "overheat" if forced to taxi to the end. Really? Your Aerostar overheats if you have to taxi to the end of a 9000' runway rather than the 6000' intersection? Sounds like it needs some serious maintenance to me. The only aircraft I know that actually overheat on a long taxi are some of the Reno racers and Spits. In winter, it's better to let the engine oil warm up that extra minute or so.

 

[EagleRJ]

Vector4fun,

Are you allowed to give someone a position and hold clearance at an intersection at night? I thought that was specifically prohibited in your manual, but I've seen it done recently.

 

[Vector4fun]

Eagle,

It's not legal, unless the facility has a waiver to the rule. I have no idea which facilities have waivers to which rules, but some do. LAX used to have several. If it was at a busy airport which routinely uses some runways only for departures, then it may be likely they have a waiver. Here's the appropriate section of the rule book:

​

3-9-4. TAXI INTO POSITION AND HOLD (TIPH) ​

​

(snip)​

​

e. Do not authorize an aircraft to taxi into position and hold when the departure point is not visible from the tower, unless the aircraft's position can be verified by ASDE or the runway is used for departures only. ​

f. Do not authorize an aircraft to taxi into position and hold at an intersection between sunset and sunrise or at anytime when the intersection is not visible from the tower.
​

 

[ATCER]

Not exactly the same topic but deals with landing, here is something I found in press clips about ORD... anyone care to comment ??? Sounds like the AAL boys are not crazy about the idea but went along with it figuring they would look bad if they opted out. Is it me or does this sound like the old SOIR, predecessor to LAHSO ...

*********************

CHICAGO TRIBUNE: FAA moves to cut delays at O'Hare; New runway rule seen speeding up takeoffs, landings

By Jon Hilkevitch, Tribune transportation reporter.

In an attempt to reduce flight delays, the distance between planes landing and taking off on intersecting runways at O'Hare International Airport will be cut in half, the FAA said Thursday.

The new procedure, which has not been used at any other airport, squeezes about 10 more flights per hour into O'Hare when a certain combination of runways is used.

"It will permit more flight operations while ensuring the same level of safety," said Tony Molinaro, Federal Aviation Administration spokesman. "Our goal is to make the airport more efficient and cut down on delays a little more."

The change, which the FAA developed with American Airlines, United Airlines and pilot and controller unions, will be implemented Sunday.

It is not expected to eliminate delays or substitute for new runways planned at O'Hare. FAA officials also said the experiment is not an invitation for airlines to schedule more flights. It is intended as a short-term solution to cope with airline overscheduling at the nation's most congested airport.

If successful at O'Hare, the procedure could be used at LaGuardia Airport in New York and other delay-prone airports, officials said.

The airlines flood O'Hare with about 120 arrivals and almost as many departures each hour during peak periods, although planes routinely become stacked up because fewer aircraft can be accommodated when the weather is less than perfect.

The new procedure addresses some of the backlog by decreasing the spacing interval between aircraft to allow more arrivals on O'Hare's longest runway, called 14 Right, and more departures on an intersecting east-west runway, 27 Left.

The new O'Hare plan is designed to stagger--yet increase--the flow of airplanes going through the intersection of the two runways.

Under the new plan, a plane taking off from runway 27 Left can be passing through the intersection while the plane that has landed and is braking on 14 Right comes within 5,000 feet of the intersection.

The existing rule requires a safety cushion of 10,000 feet between aircraft. It requires the landing plane to still be in the air, and no closer to the airport than the tip of 14 Right, when the plane taking off on 27 Left is clearing the intersection.

FAA officials said the new procedure has passed a rigorous safety analysis, can be performed in any weather condition and will expand O'Hare's capacity by eight to 10 additional flights per hour.

The distance between planes queuing up to land on 14 Right will also be reduced, to 3 miles between planes instead of 4 miles to get planes in quicker, officials said.

"The delay reduction will be felt by both the customers and the pilots," said Captain John Burton, one of American Airlines' chief pilots at O'Hare.

Spokesmen for the Allied Pilots Association, which represents pilots for American, and the Air Line Pilots Association, the pilots union at United and other carriers, said the unions are cooperating to ensure safety margins are maintained under the new procedure.

"It's a work in progress," said Dave Aldrich, a spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association.

For a number of years American Airlines pilots have refused to perform a different operation at O'Hare called land and hold short. Under that operation, a plane landing on one runway must come to a complete stop before an intersection where another plane is on its high-speed takeoff.

American pilots say that maneuver is too risky based on the runway lengths at O'Hare. United pilots, however, have agreed to the maneuver under certain circumstances.

The burden of making the procedure that starts Sunday work will fall mainly on O'Hare's air-traffic controllers as well as the controllers at an FAA facility in Elgin that handles planes approaching and departing O'Hare.

The chief of the controllers union at O'Hare said his members are on board with the FAA plan, but he said it represents only a "Band-Aid solution" and makes the controllers' job more complicated.

"If we weren't so overscheduled with flights right now, we wouldn't have to do these kind of things," said Craig Burzych, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association at O'Hare tower.

 

[idleclamp]

This would work great, IF everybody operated the same way, i.e. expediting clearing the runway, maintaining speed from the marker, rolling departure, etc. The problem lies with people having a lot different approach speeds and not "putting the coals to it" right away when cleared for takeoff. Example: Several months back I was coming into ORD around 9:00 p.m. We were very close to max landing weight and our approach speed was somewhere around 168kts. An AA MD-80 landed in front of us, he had plenty of time to take the high-speed, but evidently he takes the "taxi at no faster than a brisk walk" seriously. He practically stopped on the runway before taking the highspeed turnoff. We had to go missed. The next time around, (BTW we had keep the slats extended to maintain ATC requested speed), we told the controllers what our approach speed would be. We're on about a 2-mile final and Tower clears another AA MD-80 for takeoff in front of us. No problem, except the fact that he decided to stop on the runway before he started his roll. We were 150' AGL when we got the clearance to land as he was breaking ground. If we would've had to go around again, we would've ate him up.


Something definetly needs to be done at ORD, possibly cutting back on the number of slots awarded. Or building another airport like Denver did. Just my two-cents.