Head wind takeoff into rising hills, or crosswind takeoff to open space ??

The other thing to keep in mind is that "headwinds into rising
terrain" is dangerous simply from a mountain flying perspective,
simply because (at least at TRK), your basically flying straight
towards the rotors coming off the Donner Pass, and their associated
turbulence and smash-plane-into-ground downdrafts. As I'm sure you
know, flying perpendicularly towards a mountain ridge without
sufficiant (several thousand) feet of clearance is ALWAYS a bad idea,
especially after take-off and even more so if your also flying into a
head-wind. 45 Degree approach, always - give yourself that out.

Crosswind takeoffs are a no brainer, the only risk is traffic, and
that's what CTAF is for. So yeah, I would have to agree your better
off going crosswind and taking your time to build energy.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:47:10 -0000, EridanMan
wrote in .com:

the only risk is traffic, and that's what CTAF is for.

Actually, that's what an airman's eyes are fore. CTAF isn't very
useful for deconflicting NORDO traffic.

Actually, that's what an airman's eyes are fore. CTAF isn't very
useful for deconflicting NORDO traffic.

Touche

On Sep 19, 4:47 pm, EridanMan wrote:
The other thing to keep in mind is that "headwinds into rising
terrain" is dangerous simply from a mountain flying perspective,
simply because (at least at TRK), your basically flying straight
towards the rotors coming off the Donner Pass, and their associated
turbulence and smash-plane-into-ground downdrafts. As I'm sure you
know, flying perpendicularly towards a mountain ridge without
sufficiant (several thousand) feet of clearance is ALWAYS a bad idea,
especially after take-off and even more so if your also flying into a
head-wind. 45 Degree approach, always - give yourself that out.

Crosswind takeoffs are a no brainer, the only risk is traffic, and
that's what CTAF is for. So yeah, I would have to agree your better
off going crosswind and taking your time to build energy.

I did taking-off-headwind-into-rising-terrain before, the turbulence
was uncomfortable, even though there was enough room to turn
crosswind, then downwind.

This reminds me of a recent crash near L05 (Kern Valley, CA), where
a pilot may have stalled the plane in the pattern.

For L05, I probably would have always landed on 35 and
took off on 17, no matter what wind condition. If the tail wind
is too strong that makes the runway length a factor, I'd either wait
it out for departure, or go else where for landing.

P S