Taxiway landing/takeoff

[asgm6]

In your opinion,
Is it acceptable to takeoff/land from/on a taxiway because the wind conditions favor the taxiway (without declaring an emergency)?

 

[Gulfstream 200]

NO - dont be jacka$$, use the runway.

I cant imagine getting in that situation with any kind of halfway decent flight planning...

 

[Q200_FO]

Ask these guys......

NTSB Identification: ANC02IA011. The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number DMS.
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 129: Foreign operation of CHINA AIRLINES LTD.

Incident occurred Friday, January 25, 2002 in ANCHORAGE, AK
Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/30/03
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie A-340-300, registration: B-18805
Injuries: 252 Uninjured.
During clear dark night visual meteorological conditions, the crew of an Airbus A-340-300 airplane was given a clearance to taxi to runway 32 via taxiway Romeo, and Kilo. The captain, the non-flying pilot, taxied the airplane. A relief captain occupied the center cockpit seat, and the first officer occupied the right seat. The airplane proceeded southbound on taxiway Romeo, a heading of 140 degrees, and was cleared for takeoff on runway 32 by a tower controller as the airplane was approaching taxiway Kilo. The airplane made a right turn from taxiway Romeo onto taxiway Kilo, a heading of 240 degrees, and came to a stop at the lighted hold line east of the runway 32 extension. The airplane was expected to have continued west on Kilo into the extended portion of runway 32, and then turned right (north) onto the approach end of runway 32, but the captain requested the "before takeoff checklist," and the first officer, the flying pilot, complied. Following his completion of the checklist, the captain stated, "You have control." The airplane accelerated west on taxiway Kilo. Tower controllers noticed the departure roll, and the airport's emergency phone to the fire department was activated. The local controller did not make a radio call to the crew to abort the takeoff as he felt it was too late. The airplane took off, proceeded to its destination and landed without further incident. After departure, main landing gear tire impressions were found in a snow berm at the west end of taxiway Kilo. The available taxiway distance from Romeo to the end of Kilo is about 6,800 feet. The calculated takeoff distance for the airplane was 7,746 feet. The cockpit navigation display for the Airbus A340 depicts the airplane's heading along a rotating arc near the top of the navigational display, along with a yellow airplane symbol and a white runway symbol. Taxiway Romeo and Kilo are equipped with green centerline lights having variable illumination intensity through three settings. The taxiway centerline lights for Romeo and Kilo were set on the standard (level 1) intensity level. The intersection of taxiway Kilo and Romeo has a yellow centerline stripe in the radius of the turn from Romeo to Kilo, but no centerline lights along the radius of the turn. The intersection of Kilo and the extended portion of runway 32 have a yellow centerline stripe in the radius of the turn from Kilo onto the extended centerline of runway 32, but no centerline lights along the radius of the turn. The centerline lights of Kilo did not extend through the extended portion of runway 32. Some reflective material of each taxiway centerline marking was indistinct, missing, or obscured by small patches of ice. The incident flight was the captain's first trip from Anchorage. It was the first time he flew with the first officer, and he had flown with the reserve captain on numerous occasions. The operator's aircraft operating manual for the Airbus fleet did not contain a checklist requirement for the crew to verbalize and verify the runway in use before takeoff.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this incident as follows:

The captain's selection of a taxiway instead of a runway for takeoff and the flightcrew's inadequate coordination of the departure, which resulted in a departure from a taxiway. A factor in the incident was inadequate airline operator's procedures that did not require the crew to verbilize and verify the runway in use prior to takeoff.

 

[WrightAvia]

That's a great analogy, but I think the original poster was probably asking in reference to a 172 or some kind of tail dragger landing with purpose on a taxi way, not heavy jet operators from foreign lands, taking off of a taxi way by mistake.

With permission from the airport manager, you could take off or land on a taxi way. So in essence, you could say it IS possible to do that. In fact, why don't you go to the Central Wisconsin Airport (CWA), and go look at all the freaking tire marks on a taxi way, that are left there by C-130's doing touch and goes.

 

[mar]

Are we talking about HPB?

asgm6--Without giving away too much info...are we talking about HPB?

Judging by your profile I'm jumping to a conclusion as to who you work for and where the taxi-way landings are happening.

In my opinion, given the remote location, I would say: As long as nothing ever happened, nothing will ever come of it (no harm, no foul).

As soon as something draws some attention (blown tire, landing long or short, etc) and there's an investigation then there will be consequences.

If you work for who I think you work for then you're in a sticky situation because they've been doing this for years (safely, in my opinion. The twin otter can land shorter than a 207 sometimes).

But the fact remains: You're hanging your certificate out in the wind everyday, you've worked hard for it and you don't want to jeopardize it. What do you do when the job market is flat on its butt and there's no where else to go?

My advice (and I'll take the heat if someone disagrees): grin and bear it until you get the experience to go somewhere else. Here's why: In a company dominated by personal politics (aren't they all?) a low-time twin otter FO is on the bottom of the food chain. If you speak up and rock the boat you'll put yourself in a very undesirable position. If you develop a bad reputation in a small community your reputation will preceed you and make things very difficult. Believe me, I've been there.

In my opinion, it's more likely that you'll just make problems for yourself than actually have an accident that'll draw attention to what's happening resulting in certificate action.

Disclaimer: In no way, shape or form should my advice be interpreted as "Gear up, Flaps up, Shut up." If you truly believe the airplane is in immediate danger then you're obligated to speak up and say something.

Also if this is not occuring at HPB and I've misinterpreted who you work for then all bets are off, offer is void, prohibited by law, etc. etc...

Fly safe.

 

[flywithastick]

That's a great analogy, but I think the original poster was probably asking in reference to a 172 or some kind of tail dragger landing with purpose on a taxi way, not heavy jet operators from foreign lands, taking off of a taxi way by mistake.

guess I'd take the question from this angle as well and agree with what WrightAvia. Example - trying to get somewhere in a plane like a Cub and all you have is 25-30 kts across the runway at the airport where you gotta stop and get gas. not that I'd do anything like this, but IMVHO the 50-60 ft of take off run across the ramp or taxiway isn't unacceptably dangerous, versus getting blown over trying to taxi to the rwy. and yes, this hypothetical cross country was pretty much downwind, thankfully.

As mar has pointed out though. Anything goes wrong, and you'll probably be introduced to 91.13 at the least. But they'd probably write you up with this in most accident situations anyway. Just don't f*@# up!

 

[Rick1128]

I have operated into and out of several airports that had runways closed and were NOTAM'd to use the taxi way as the runway. Aircraft have included LR25s and CV580s, so it can be done. For many years, Metro Airlines had a letter of agreement with IAH airport to use a 2,000 foot section of two different taxiways as runways for their Twin Otters and Shorts 3-30s.

If you are talking about excessively heavy x-winds, I would look at using the runway at a taxiway intersection and take off or land across the runway at that point. As long as the takeoff or landing roll would not excessively use the taxiway. And before you start with your so called 'legal' opinions, find in the regs where it states you have to land or takeoff down the long way of the runway.

 

[jergar999]

I fly air ambulance in King Airs, and during a recent runway closure we were given permission to use the main taxiway for takeoff and landing.

 

[WrightAvia]

I fly into an airport where in the winter time, they close the shorter crossing runway...7 and 25. I guess they have their reasons, but it ammounts to being a snow removal issue.

So anyway...I tried landing on 31 and the wind was too strong to do so, so I go around. I'm in a Caravan with a pod, not the best cross wind machine out there. The runways 7 and 25 are clear of snow, but are still notam'd closed. I called the airport manager on the radio, advised him of my perdicament and he told me as soon as he could get the county maintenance vechicles off of there I could use 7/25 to land. Which they did, then I did.

I know it's not the same as using a taxi way to land, but it was a runway that was notam'd closed...and all I had to do was ask and it was mine for the using.