For the cost of 39 cents you can help a DZ Wright a letter please

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

What PDave said... plus consider this...


"Some of the most useless things in aviation:"

1. Altitude above you.
2. Gas on the ground.
and
3. Runway behind you.


... think about it.

[milehighpres 0]

me and mostlyharmless did a whole bunch of math and figuring out....well with our caravan we can takeoff and land safely with a full load two takeoffs and two landings...with room to spare....

"the sky is not the limit....the ground is"

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

True enough.

However, like others have pointed out, some of the proposed arguements vs. this aren't much more then "whining".

Also, if you have a mishap, say a runway excursion, after attempting takeoff from mid-field on say a 10,000 foot runway, your calculations withstanding that 5,000 feet of runway would be "just fine" for your aircraft, the fact that you gave up 5,000 feet of usable runway because you didn't want to take that long taxi for what ever reason... I'd bet you a paycheck it WILL BE talked about as a contributing factor in the mishap report. Trust me... my "real job"... almost 20 years experience in the field of Aerospace Engineering, specifically, Flight Test.

Pick your battles.

Other's opinions may differ, but be equally as vaild... or not.



Good luck.



to add...

Pissing off the locals is a contributor to the demize of may a drop zone. Not that you have to prostrate yourself to them, but, again, pick your battles.

[Broke 0]

I would like to add to the conversation that the DZO himself did ask us to send these letters to the town board.

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[Mozencrath 0]

Quote

True enough.

However, like others have pointed out, some of the proposed arguements vs. this aren't much more then "whining".





to add...

Pissing off the locals is a contributor to the demize of may a drop zone. Not that you have to prostrate yourself to them, but, again, pick your battles.

I work and jump at SDLI and I don't believe we are whining...Perhaps you don't see the potential impact on a DZ such as ours?

The noted reason is to protect the pine barrens....Well, I hate to say it but they are screwed anyway. When Grumman ran out of this place they dumpe thousands of tons of jet fuel all over the place. Not only that, but isn't an extra 5 minutes of taxxing just going to burn more harmful fuel that those beatiful pine barrens are breathing in?

The person that wants to ban the intersection departures has his own agenda...

But lets look at the "whining":

-Increased fuel consumption (higher jump costs)
-Increased taxi time (more time on the plane, wear on the tires, unsafe!!)
-Extra time baking in the plane (Tandems will love that)
-Less loads per day (losing yet more money)
-Extra noise
-Extra pollution


As far as your statement concerning the 5000 feet of runway we gave up, well guess what....A quick left turn and now we aren't crashing into the pine barrens, now we are landing on the other runway!!!

The voting is THIS Friday. It would be a great help to our super busy DZ (200+ tandems/wkend) to mail out a letter or even an e-mail...Thanks.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Well, sorry Mozencrath, I think 4 out of your 6 arguements are "whinig"... probably stuff I'd whine about too, but that none the less.

Anyway, good luck to y'all.

Let us know how it turns out.

--edit--

Quote

As far as your statement concerning the 5000 feet of runway we gave up, well guess what....A quick left turn and now we aren't crashing into the pine barrens, now we are landing on the other runway!!!

Generally speaking (not being fam with your airport) you may want to talk to a pilot about that. Engine shits itself right after rotation + less than pattern altitude + quick turn to reach a preceived safe landing on an improved surface... DOES NOT necessisairly = Goodness.... but there's plenty of other threads here on airmanship, so, that, as they say, is a different story.

[pilotdave 0]

While I agree that using all available runway is generally a good idea and does increase safety (assuming all that extra taxiing doesn't degrade safety), I also believe that requiring a caravan to use 10,000 feet of runway is unnecessary. Our DZ operates a grand caravan off of an 1800 foot runway. Intersection departures are standard, accepted practice. 5000 feet of runway is more than double an adequate runway for a caravan (near sea level). Yes, it leaves 5000 feet of wasted runway behind, but I don't believe there's really a valid argument for why 5000 feet of runway is inadequate or unsafe or particularly risking the trees at the end of the runway.

More noisy to the airport neighbors? Maybe...

Dave

[Kynan1 0]

Write
Right

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Dave,

Viloent agreement with you on everything but the extra taxi time degrading safety argument... as in... I'd like to see you convince some FAA or Airport Manager beauracrat hell bent on not allowing intersection departures of that... not saying it can't be done, I'd just like to hear the argument that convinced them that extra taxi time in and of itself was "bad" for safety... possibly if you had some pictures of them and goats...

Also, I've been around enough Aviation Mishaps and Mishap Investigations to know that I don't care how STOL your aircraft is, if you take off at the middle of a 10,000 foot runway and something goes wonky shortly after rotation someone in the process of that investigation is going to want to know why you didn't go all the way to the end of the runway... I'd recommend your first response not being, "casue we were hot and sweaty."

[pilotdave 0]

If I really wanted to know what taxiing 20 miles per day will do to a Caravan, I'd call Cessna. Airplanes are designed around requirements. I can't imagine that Cessna ever dreamed up a scenario where a Caravan would taxi 20 miles per day. I can't think of an operator that would do that on a regular basis. So if it wasn't designed to do that, it might cause problems. Not saying it WILL, just saying it could. It did happen to a japanese helicopter fleet I mentioned above (but helicopter wheels are not designed to roll nearly as much as plane wheels). And for that particular helicopter, a nose gear failure at taxi speeds is a catastrophic event because the rotor will bounce down and slice through the tail, sending debris everywhere.

Just another example from the helicopter world... helicopter logging. They use helicopters to pick up trees that have been cut down and bring them to a road to get carried away. They use helicopters designed to carry external loads, and they don't overload them. But a logging helicopter can do 20-30 lifts per hour. The original requirements for a particular helicopter were 5 lifts per hour. Guess what? The life of a critical main rotor component drops from 20,000 hours to 2,000 hours when the aircraft is used for logging. Who woulda thunk it?

Dave

[Mozencrath 0]

Quote

--edit--

Quote

As far as your statement concerning the 5000 feet of runway we gave up, well guess what....A quick left turn and now we aren't crashing into the pine barrens, now we are landing on the other runway!!!

Generally speaking (not being fam with your airport) you may want to talk to a pilot about that. But there's plenty of other threads here on airmanship, so, that, as they say, is a different story.

Those are the words of our pilot.

Sorry if I'm "whining" about our safety....Call cessna and see if they want one of their planes taxiing 40 miles a day.

[jdatc 0]

Quote

I've been around enough Aviation Mishaps and Mishap Investigations to know

I stayed out of this thread as long as I could... I swear. Now a long boring post.

Like ZigZag I am one of those so called aviation professionals. A couple degrees, Commercial Pilot, Aircraft Dispatcher, Air Traffic Controller and I even did a little over half a year in Safety at a major airline at one point. blah blah blah... I work for the devil now.....

I also happen to jump at SDLI... when not doing the other jumping.

To cut to the chase, Zig is right on the money. If there is an accident, they (NTSB) are going to reference the fact that there is 10,000' of runway, and we used X,XXX feet.... NTSB always puts safety over $$$....

By no means are intersection departures unsafe. In fact, at any intersection departure at Calverton there is more than adequate runway for a Caravan to safely takeoff and clear obstacles..... however;

Going back to the taxi-ing issue:

Certain planes, aren't designed for long distance taxiing.... I remember a certain incident where a large aircraft aborted a takeoff due to an insignificant fact and on the taxi back the brakes caught fire... whoops! Suppose to wait and let them cool after a Rejected takeoff.....

Too much taxiing + aborted takeoff = bad.....




The other thing, is the math aspect, with people figuring out distances, and etcetera (sorry Jordan).

It's all assumptions. Bad ones off internet data.

To make accurate ones, we need a POH (pilot operating handbook) some real world figures and an experienced caravan pilot.

Look at just some of the variables:

- The weight the aircraft took off at.
- Temperature or density altitude
- Take off type Rolling takeoff? Stop apply max power, then let off the brakes?
-Center of gravity (it does affect climb rate and stability)
- CLimb speed? Vx (best angle) or Vy (best rate) and when?
- Headwind, crosswind, tailwind?

These are just a few variables....


Then factor in there is an engine failure in the aircraft....

-Altitude and speed it occured at?
-Is it sudden? (turbines don't generally just lose a cylender and start self destructing)
-How quick was it recognized? Pitch changed instantly?
- Time to feather prop?
- What is the best glide speed in a 208B?
- Power off, how much altitude does it take to make a 90 degree turn, a 180 degree turn?


Calverton has plenty of outs if the aircraft were to lose power from an intersection takeoff. SkyDive Long island also has good pilots. Pilots I would easily trust with my life if something bad happend.

However, the fact remains that the airport / town can do what it likes. Beleive it or not, more than likely, banning intersection takeoffs would increase safety.

It's an undeniable fact. Take off from one end straight ahead, and no matter what altitude you were at, you could easily land straight ahead or have more than enough altitude by the airport boundry to do a 180 and land opposite direction to the takeoff on the runway.

However, the FAA is about cost benefit. We could even probably make airlines a 99.999999% safe. Too bad it would cost a million bucks a ticket.

And that's what this is about. Cost benefit analysis. The cost of the extra wear and tear on the aircraft, the extra taxiing of the plane, the increased fuel burn, is not worth the increase in safety we would recieve in terms of landing on the airport or landing in a sod farm or field in case of engine failure.

This is about one resident pushing his agenda. I hope that SDLI wins, and intersection takeoffs are allowed, because of the above fact.

_justin

By the way, Back when I used to fly I did one time use a 3200' runway instead of a 10,000' one in a piston single and after breaking ground I lost partial power and almost put it in the trees.

Micky Mouse yells mayday I suppose. Even after that incident, I still took the 3200' runway rather than the increased taxi distance.

Risk / Reward.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Okay, Moz, PDave,

Please, call Cessna. Explain to them your situation including your reasons why you don't want to do this and please post it here.

I'd like to hear what they have to say.

[pilotdave 0]

Not being the owner of a Caravan, I doubt I'd have much luck getting any information out of them. I think the FAA/NTSB would have an easier time after a landing gear failure.

I work for an aircraft manufacturer in the product safety department. Requests for information like that from operators are common, but usually after something breaks.

Dave

[Mozencrath 0]

I don't know who from the dz started this thread, but it appears that instead of people offering help, it has turned into a typical DZ thread where no one does anything but be condescending, argumentative, and act the opposite of what a close community should. All the reasons I have about 20 posts in 1.5 years.

This forum and its posters need to focus more on skydiving and less on arguing in skydiving forums.

On a side note, voting for our airport is tomorrow. Thank you for anyone who read this post and wrote a letter or offered help. I'm sure Ray would be thankful.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Moz... I honestly hope it works out well for y'all too... but I was just trying to point out that you might want to reconsider some of the reasons y'all were coming up.

Please let know how it turns out.... either way... please also let us know what your final presentation was.

Skies!

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

it appears that instead of people offering help, it has turned into a typical DZ thread where no one does anything but be condescending, argumentative, and act the opposite of what a close community should.

It's an internet forum. That's what it's here for.
It's also an international skydiving forum. You have a local problem. Do you think letters from skydivers around the world to your town will help? Do you expect non-local skydivers to get involved? Some people here don't agree with you. Does that make them argumentative when they offer their opinions?

Has your dropzone talked to the AOPA? They may actually be able to help in a meaningful way.

Dave