Coburg (EDQC) has this. The „physical“ runway is about 900 metres long, but the actual runway is only 632 metres long. Beyond both runway ends, there is a Runway End Safety Area (RESA), which is marked only by a yellow centreline (like on a taxiway).
So here is the quiz…
Say you are departing on runway 12. What is correct? Once you align on the physical runway (coming from the taxiway) you:
a) can start your takeoff roll right there
b) can start your takeoff roll right there, but are not allowed to lift off before the white line
c) are to taxy all the way past the white line and only then may start the actual takeoff run
And a bonus question: where is an average pilot supposed to know this from, i.e. where is the reply written? (Note: it is not in the AIP for EDQC)
Bosco, I think it is "you can start your “high-speed taxi”, meaning on full power :) , from the very beginning and then the take-off not before the white line.
The answer would be in the Part-OPS, right?
I don’t have an answer 
a) can start your takeoff roll right there
Of course, I would go with this, no idea about the rules regarding runway markings but I can make my own judgement on usable surfaces for takeoff on unmarked runways, I am sure, I can make same sensible judgements for marked ones
boscomantico wrote:
So here is the quiz…
Say you are departing on runway 12. What is correct? Once you align on the physical runway (coming from the taxiway) youa) can start your takeoff roll right there
b) can start your takeoff roll right there, but are not allowed to lift off before the white bar
c) are to taxy all the way past the white line and only then may start the actual takeoff run
Formally, I think (c) is the correct answer as the declared TORA is only 632 m. There are some valid reasons why this could be, e.g. with a jet aircraft, the jet blast could potentially affect the road west of the airfield. (Maybe not in the specific case of EDQC with a 632 m TORA, but generally speaking.) Also potentially, there might be some issue with the surface although it can’t be that bad as taxying is possible. From a practical point of view with a SEP, I would go for (a).
Airborne_Again wrote:
Also potentially, there might be some issue with the surface although it can’t be that bad as taxying is possible.
Reasoning solely using physics: continuous rolling for takeoff with weight transferred from wheels to wings tend to have little surface loads compared to slow taxi or breaking for stops and turns, this becomes obvious when one look at soft wet grass runways…
Jet blast (or prop wash) seems the main reason
Ibra wrote:
Reasoning solely using physics: continuous rolling for takeoff with weight transferred from wheels to wings tend to have little surface loads compared to slow taxi or breaking for stops and turns, this becomes obvious when one look at soft wet grass runways…
I was thinking more about surface roughness or bumps.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I was thinking more about surface roughness or bumps.
Ah ok, I would have expected all ‘safety areas’ surrounding licensed runways to be of good quality: free of bumps and rated to support large RFFS vehicles (10T-30T), they are also excepted to be ‘safe’ to absorb large aircraft excursions and overruns, ideally, without structural damage to aircraft where the main risk is getting stuck
I am sure the majority of ‘safety areas’ are as smooth as silk for sub-2T piston operation, say compared to typical ‘GA paved apron’, assuming you get to park on paved ones rather than some grass parking full of bumps and path holes
Practically, if 12T-200T jets can taxi on some surface X, then the typical C172 can takeoff & land on that surface (legally, it’s a different topic )
boscomantico wrote:
nd a bonus question: where is an average pilot supposed to know this from
His PPL course? If (s)he remembers it ;-)
The other “funny” thing is that EDQC has an instrument approach to RWY30… Following the GS one has, on paper, 340m landing run. The “usable lengths / landing beyond / …” section of the Jeppesen 10-9 chart is … demurely blank. While it should IMHO on the contrary be red flashing bold to “attract the attention” of the pilot to that.
lionel wrote:
The other “funny” thing is that EDQC has an instrument approach to RWY30… Following the GS one has, on paper, 340m landing run.
The landing run following the GS is 397 m as the TCH is 40’. Following the PAPI the TCH is as low as 18’ with a landing run of 526 m. Actually the landing run is even longer as the runway has an upslope.
(Edit: Corrected confused figures.)
Here’s another one: Newtonards (EGAD)
The threshold is displaced due to a football pitch and a large hill in the undershoot.
