Add 50% margin on your 50ft obstacle takeoff performance data, and perhaps 70% margin if you don't want the butt-pucker sweating-bullets feeling as you takeoff and are aiming right at the winery building. If the POH says you need 2000ft to takeoff and clear a 50ft obstacle, 50% margin means 3000ft is required to actually be safe. Look carefully in Google Earth at what the terrain elevations and obstacles are. There is a very big and tall tree on the departure end of runway 4. Usually landing 4 and taking off 22 is going to be the best, but taking off 4 could be alright if the winds are strongly favoring that, but this all comes down to your own aircraft's performance. The ranch doesn't want you doing powered brake turns though, so you might have to maneuver the plane by hand if you depart 22. Know how to lookup and calculate climb-gradient performance, which sometimes has to be manually calculated from a climb-rate chart. Analyze that against the obstacles in your departure path to see how much you'll clear those obstacles by. I would not attempt a landing here unless you can consistently land within about 3ft left or right of centerline 100% of the time at any other airport, including in crosswind conditions. This includes the roll out. I also would not attempt a landing here unless you can consistently land at any intended touchdown spot within -0/+300ft (Commercial pilot standards are -0/+100ft) When you're approaching to land on runway 22, establish a stabilized glideslope and drive towards an aiming point that will clear the winery building. As you clear the winery building, you can reduce power and pitch down so as to choose a new aiming point and new stabilized (but steeper) glidepath closer to the beginning of the runway, so as to maximize the runway you have available. You'll see that's what I do in the video. That is standard technique for short-field landings with tall obstacles on short final. The steeper your glidepath angle, the higher you have to begin your round out. This is a private airport, which requires permission first, and you have to meet their insurance requirements. When parking, if you have low prop clearance from the ground, I would either consider shutting down and pulling it in the sand and rocks, or I would consider building up speed and momentum and then coasting into the sand with either idle power or the engine shut down. There is a short 4-5ft pole with a sign on it in the parking area that low-wing aircraft can easily hit and damage their wings, so be careful when exiting. There are maybe 15-ft poles in the vineyard just right off the sides of the runway, so you have to be careful if you choose to do a low fly-by or an early turn after departure.

@@aviatortrevor Perfectly detailed response. Appreciate it!

@@aviatortrevor how bad is the wind shear/ mech turbulence due to the surrounding terrain???

Not sure what you're referring to

prototype electronics device. I'm building a battery-powered electronic altitude/heading reminder that has an accurate pressure sensor. It buzzes/alarms when you're 1000ft from reaching your selected altitude, 200ft from reaching your selected altitude, and when you deviate from your altitude more than 200ft. You can hear it buzzing in the video. I'm going to source a louder buzzer though. I think all the parts put together into a small 3D-printed case will cost about ~$30. Maybe I'll sell some down the road. The pressure sensor is about 1/5th the size of a penny, and it seems to be within 10ft accuracy the whole flight, even though the cabin pressure is a tiny bit lower than the outside static pressure. I have settings to offset the altitude as well as dial an altimeter setting.

zero. Normally it's more, but I emailed ahead and got permission to not pay a fee if I remained in the airplane. I also negotiated a no-fee situation at Atlantic KLAX.

@@aviatortrevor Good idea. I may try that while I still can.

Yes, Vy climbs. In different conditions 1k AGL actually put us so high that we were going to overrun the runway. So, the variables are complicated. On this day, it may have been a combination of a shallow climb angle and perhaps winds above 200ft AGL were opposite of what they were at the surface. It would be interesting to conduct this test with a glass panel that tells us the exact wind components.

Nearly 100 degrees that day. Tanks were maybe 80% full. I was the only person on board. 150HP engine. Airport elevation was near Sea Level (L08 - Borrego). The climb angle is 1 factor (which is affected by weight, temperature, pressure, wind, etc). Another factor is runway length. If I'm taking off a runway that is 30,000 feet long, the only altitude I need to reach is the altitude that provides me enough to turn back and align myself. I don't need any extra altitude to glide TO the runway itself. Another factor is if you turn into the wind or with it during your turn-around maneuver. Steeper bank means less vertical component of lift and more altitude lost, but it also means tighter turn radius and staying closer to the runway. Research shows a steep turn just above the stall horn is the best procedure, however, it's also an extremely dangerous procedure because of the increased risk of stall and possibly spin. In a real engine-failure scenario, pilots will be tempted to use low rudder to sling the nose back towards the runway, but that's putting you into a skidding then and a higher spin potential. In all of these tests, I did climb out at Vy until engine failure. I gave myself a couple seconds to simulate disbelief and being stunned before starting the turn. Winds could have been at a different speed higher up than lower to the ground, so, this video is a small sample size and may not account well for calm wind conditions throughout the climb. Another day I conducted this test I had a strong 15 knot headwind at a 5000ft runway; I turned back at 1000ft AGL with 1 student onboard and we were way too high. Even with flaps and a forward slip I could tell we would land and overrun the runway so we aborted the landing (we would have survived it, but the plane would be wrecked). So, the rule of "1000ft before turning back" just isn't always true. There are too many factors involved. You would need to come up with an equation that factors in airplane performance, wind, runway length, and assumes pilot proficiency in this very tricky maneuver in order to truly know what range of altitudes will work before taking off.

​@@aviatortrevor - Yes sir. You got most of the details figured out already. And there are many. Can I add some i noticed too. As a rule of thumb, i dont recommend turnbacks over 12 knots unless you are good on forward slips and cut the mixture at the 180 degree point of turnback. Push nose down, And cut the flaps on the flare too. I have a 1995 video doing 4 kinds of Turnbacks to opposite at Sebastian Florida on a Warrior 160hp (all of them are 160hp) with a solid 16 knots 20 degree off the runway constant wind. Solid 16 knots tailwind landings on a 4,000 feet total runway with no overruns. I knew i was going to be high, by the 90 degree point of the turnback, so I started adding flaps, still high at the 180 degree i added full flaps, then I started cutting the mixture to make a spoiler off the prop. Also just passing the 180 degree i started a "Fast Forward Slip" way over the Vglide speed to the beginning of the runway. Then after forcing it over the Vglide to the beginning of the runway, i keep it low whille pulling the bar over the full flaps (You will get 5 degrees more keeping it pulled.). I call that "the bar extra five". Then over the runway, i wait the speed to go to the Vglide that is marked with a blue color tape ( I do that since 1993) and Cut the flaps slowly, to cut the lift. and hit the brakes right there. I stopped it 2 times under 3, 400 feet. Never went to the end of the runway. I also video the stalls on GRM, accelerated stalls and the engine fails from 30 feet and stopping it before the end of the 4,000 feet runway. That video is from 1995. They say i was the first CFI to demonstrate for real e the 4 kinds of engine fail on take off and initial climb and turnbacks details. Never seen any before that. I learned them on a short wing 1969 cherokee 150 hp. Keep up the good work. Most accidents on turnbacks are from guys that didnt want to practice them, or even talk about them., then tried them in a real engine fail and screwed up. For me, if you dont know these power on and power off turnbacks, you are AN INCOMPLETE PILOT. Tell that to the ones that critic you when you practice them. They are cowards. or Mild Maneuvering Pilots.

Big Bear is in southern California.

@@aviatortrevor thanks for letting me know :)

Yeah, my fault. I didn't know the plane ahead of us was staying in the pattern. Then when I saw them turning final, I thought they were landing on the parallel runway. Then ATC said I was close, and immediately was like "going around"

ya bro. sue him

sky harbor

I haven't upgraded to iOS 12 because ForeFlight has issued the statement to not do so. They are working with Apple to resolve the issue. I'm sure a fix will be out in the next version of 12. I can't tell you what to get. You've got to decide for yourself. It's a bunch of pros and cons that everyone has to weigh for themselves. Pros: *It's my preferred size. It fits either on the yoke or on the side window without being too intrusive, while also maximizing screen real-estate for displaying approach plates. *It's cheaper than getting a brand new iPad Pro 10. Cons: *It's more susceptible to becoming obsolete with some near-future software update. It's hard to say until that day comes. *Less battery than a new iPad Pro 10. *Not as big of a screen. Big screens are beautiful and the pro has higher pixel density. If money were no object, I'd get a large-size iPhone for the yoke, and an iPad Pro 10 for my lap. That is rather insanely expensive to get both of those, especially considering I will absolutely not use an iPhone as my daily phone.

Awesome! Thank you so much for the help! Stay safe up there!

@@aviatortrevor I've never used an apple product, but what is this about the iOS version? I want to buy a new iPad Mini, and your video plus other research has convinced me. Should I be concerned?

@@Aleksandar6ix this video compares the iPad mini 2 vs 4. The 5 just came out. Get the 5 if you're using ForeFlight.

Amazon. It's a RAM suction cup mount for the iPad mini (or other similar-size devices)

Next experiment will be to find the glide difference between those 2 scenarios. A research paper I read that compared a wind-milling engine to a stopped prop showed that prop length and prop pitch determined which condition had less drag, but on your typical low-pitch 172 and PA28, a wind-milling prop had more drag than a stopped prop. I'm not sure yet about idling engine vs wind-milling. Could differ from plane to plane. But then this still shows the classic knowledge that "wait until 1000' AGL to turn back" is sometimes wrong. Depends on your airplane's climb gradient, winds, length of runway, pilot proficiency in the maneuever, and a number of other factors.

aviatortrevor yes i have a 4 blade MT prop much more drag

@@meridianpilot9813 You cannot adjust it ? Why not ?

$112 wet, which should make your jaw drop (EDIT: because that is relatively cheap)

aviatortrevor that’s a steal

iPad Mini 2 is cheaper

Vergalhito TV I have both. The 4 is by far faster and smoother. Smaller battery in the 4. But it’s utilized more efficiently.