Guest

Pop Quiz IV

Fri Oct 31, 2003 4:10 pm

Here's the scenario...

A pilot wishes to either takeoff or land at an airport (in the United States) with an operating control tower. A 25 knot wind is blowing 90 degrees to the runway, but directly down a taxiway of sufficient length and width to allow a safe takeoff or landing. There are no obstacles or any other impediments that would interfere with the takeoff or landing. The operation is being conducted under Part 91 in day VFR conditions and the active runway is not closed.

Q1: Can the tower issue you a clearance to takeoff or land on the taxiway?
Q2: Is is legal to either takeoff or land on the taxiway?
 
SkyGuy11
Posts: 532
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2001 7:09 am

RE: Pop Quiz IV

Fri Oct 31, 2003 5:03 pm

1) Gonna go with yes, mainly because of the answer to 2

2) Yeah, but if you screw it up it'll be 'careless and reckless'. As FAR as I know there's no rule that says you have to use the runway!  Big grin
.
 
Guest

RE: Pop Quiz IV

Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:38 pm

Skyguy...
You only get partial credit for that answer. I'm going to hold off with the answer to see if we can get some more response.
Jetguy
 
707CMF
Posts: 4698
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2002 5:39 pm

RE: Pop Quiz IV

Sat Nov 01, 2003 12:43 am

Is the airport Chicago Meigs  Wink/being sarcastic ?

In that case, there is no other option ethan the taxiway.

sorry  Wink/being sarcastic

707
 
Slcpilot
Posts: 568
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 am

RE: Pop Quiz IV

Sat Nov 01, 2003 12:45 am

I make some distinction between T/O and landing, one of the two being mandatory.

Q1) For T/O, I suspect it would have to be requested, and then probably at the tower's discretion. For landing, certainly! Since one can deviate from the FARs (assuming it may be illegal) to the extent needed for safety (in an emergency).

Q2) I would think if the tower approves the operation, it "becomes" legal.

There was a Katana that blew off the side of the runway in Provo, Utah (uncontrolled) about 1 1/2 years ago. The folks operating the unicom all encouraged the pilot to land on the taxiway directly into the wind, but the pilot insisted on the runway with less than optimum results.

SLCPilot
I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
 
learpilot
Posts: 783
Joined: Thu May 10, 2001 11:07 am

RE: Pop Quiz IV

Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:14 am

They'll issue clearance to land on the taxiway "at your own risk". They do it for helicopters all the time.

I would say it's legal, but if you bend metal, you've got some 'splanin to do.
Heed our warnings or your future will be underpant free!
 
Guest

RE: Pop Quiz IV

Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:14 am

SLCpilot,
You're on the right track, but only partial credit to you. Anyone else with an idea?
Jetguy
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: Pop Quiz IV

Sat Nov 01, 2003 12:20 pm

But if there is a taxiway with sufficient length woukd there not also be a runway into the wind as well?

The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
Guest

RE: Pop Quiz IV

Sat Nov 01, 2003 2:11 pm

Steve,
Not always, especially out here in the west.
Jetguy
 
Illini_152
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 6:00 am

RE: Pop Quiz IV

Sat Nov 01, 2003 2:14 pm

There is nothing in part 91 regarding landing on a runway. Since there is no federal regulation saying a part 91 flight cannot land on a taxiway, road, driveway, median, semi trailer or houseboat, it is legal, per the FAA to do so.

That is not to say that if you screw up your landing on the roof a a houseboat (seen the pictures from that one) that the FAA will not go after you for careless and reckless though.

I don't know about part 135 or 121, if runways or airports need to be approved by the operator before they can be used. I'm sure one of the airline guys here can answer that one though.

But under part 91, it is perfectly legal to land in your backyard and takeoff again (or, say make an emergency landing in a clear field, have no damage, and take back off. That doesn't even need to get reported, assuming of course if the aircraft is still flyable, then there was no significant damage.)
Happy contrails - I support B747Skipper and Jetguy
 
Guest

RE: Pop Quiz IV

Sat Nov 01, 2003 2:26 pm

Bingo!

Mike, you win the prize.

Operations under Part 135 do require a runway, but under Part 91 it is not. The control tower however can not clear you to either land or takeoff from a taxiway. What they will do is provide you with traffic advisories and advise the pilot that takeoff or landing is at the pilot's descretion. Over the years, I've had to do it a couple of times and it is no big deal. It sure beats landing or takingoff in a marginal crosswind.

Jetguy
 
Illini_152
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 6:00 am

RE: Pop Quiz IV

Sat Nov 01, 2003 3:43 pm

When I was towing banners in Jersey we'd sometimes have to go to the local airport, WWD, to get gas when we couldn't get it delivered to our "field". Some days the wind would be really blowing, and any runway would have a crosswind too strong to land a Cub in, especially one with no brakes, and busted tailwheel steering.

Since WWD was an old Navy base from WWII, it uses the standard 3 runways crossing with the large field in the middle. This field was longer than our runway, and in better condition. When there was a strong wind, we'd just land there and not think anything of it. Of course, I've never tried it at a controlled field, or in anything bigger than a PA-12. Configured for towing though, it was hard to think of a spot where we couldn't land and take back off out of if we wanted too.

One of the nice things about our field though, was since it was carved out of forrest, all you'd really get was turbulence as you went below the treeline on approach; no real crosswind to speak of.

--
Mike
Happy contrails - I support B747Skipper and Jetguy
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: Pop Quiz IV

Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:46 am

Having had the requisite 24 hours to think about things, I realize that certain airports, OAK springs to mind, have taxiways that could handle a light aircraft. And though not a part 91 or a crosswind situation, AM pilots seemed to like the taxiway here in TUS for landing.

PS: I can spell would. Really, I can!

Houseboat???
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
Illini_152
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 6:00 am

RE: Pop Quiz IV

Mon Nov 03, 2003 2:29 pm

It was a stunt somewhere in Florida, a houseboat was setup with a reinforced deck on the roof and chugged along at full speed into the wind. A Piper Cub flew over, matched speed with it, and touched down on the deck. Don't know exactly when or where, but my old boss showed me the newspaper clipping, said it was a friend of his.

Same guy had a PA-18 with an O-540 strapped to the front. I DID see that one. Just a slight modification, involvign reinforced tubing halfway back, the firewall and bootcowling cut, insturment panel removed and moved back to where the front seat should have been, balast added to the tail, and 80 gal. bush tanks in the wings. It was used for towing REAL big banners.

--
Mike
Happy contrails - I support B747Skipper and Jetguy
 
Guest

RE: Pop Quiz IV

Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:13 pm

My favorite "runway" is a river or a lake. I'm sure you've all seen the pictures of the bush pilots flying Super Cubs with Tundra Tires (not floats) hydroplaning on the water. Hey, I understand the physics behind it, but still, those guys must have cajones the size of basketballs. Big grin
Jetguy

P.S. Don't try this at home boys and girls.
 
Illini_152
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 6:00 am

RE: Pop Quiz IV

Tue Nov 04, 2003 9:51 am

Already have, but it didn't work too well  Big grin Of course, the water was only about 6-12" deep, we had a very wet spring, and our field was flooded quite often to the point of being closer to a swamp. The trick was to touchdown on the one dry spot, and be slowed down enough to avoid the deep water.

It didn't work. I faired OK, just got REAL wet- backseat of a Cub with no doors hitting a mud puddle at 35 mph is NOT fun. I managed to keep the stick back and gave it enough power to keep her upright.

One of our other pilots landed long and fast, and made the mistake of hitting the brakes as he hit the mud puddle (as evidenced by the plowing at the end of his tracks). He went over on his back. The plane was back up flying in 2 weeks...
Happy contrails - I support B747Skipper and Jetguy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: glen and 6 guests