Was at TRK (Truckee), and wind was 200@10 or 210@11.
Wind favors Runway 19, but west departure needs to consider
some hills nearby, which was inconvenient but not challenging.
We took off on 28 instead, and the terrain
was much more flat north of the airport, going west.
28 is 7000', longer than 19.

I plan to use 28 in the future if cross wind is less than 15kts.
Even if other pilots use 19 at the same time. I'd announce such
before taking the runway, and on upwind.

I didn't hear any complaints from other pilots landing and taking
off on 19, but not sure if this was not a problem. I could see
them at all times.

If you were coming in or going out on 19, would you have issues
with me departing on 28 ?

For others not familiar with the area, TRK is a moderately busy
airport, with frequent glider operations, as well as "transient"
traffic.

P S

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:11:36 -0700, P S > wrote in
om>:

>
>If you were coming in or going out on 19, would you have issues
>with me departing on 28 ?

No. Scanning for conflicting traffic is always an issue at
uncontrolled fields (or airports with operating control towers for
that matter).

You should be aware of these Additional Remarks for Truckee airport
that may influence your choice of runways:

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KTRK
- SUMMER DENSITY ALTITUDES IN AFTERNOON FREQUENTLY EXCEED 9000'.
- DOWN DRAFTS MAY BE ENCOUNTERED EXPC WINDSHEAR.

Additionally, you should be aware that the local residents are
attempting to close the airport due to noise complaints, so pilots
using the airport would be well advised to avoid operating over the
city located off the departure end of runway 25:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/region/2005/050107ca3.html
Truckee loses airport board majority
The three new members of the Truckee-Tahoe Airport District
elected to the five-member board in November are members of a
group that wants to limit growth of the Truckee-Tahoe Airport.
Their candidacy was supported by the Community Airport Restoration
Effort (CARE) that had raised concerns about land-use and noise
related to the airport. Their victory came after an emotional and
heavily funded fight. Spending by opponents and proponents totaled
more than $100,000. AOPA had weighed in on the issues with a
series of newspaper ads educating the voters about the value of
the airport. "We don't know what it means for the airport yet,
because we have seen no specific proposals from the CARE
candidates," said Roger Cohen, AOPA vice president of regional
affairs. "But in terms of long-term viability, the airport has
received numerous federal airport grants, and, therefore, the
district is obligated to operate the airport for at least 20
years. They also have grants for land acquisition, and those
grants obligate the district to use that land as an airport in
perpetuity."

January 7, 2005

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 Sep 19, 3:26 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:11:36 -0700, P S > wrote in
> om>:
>
>
>
> >If you were coming in or going out on 19, would you have issues
> >with me departing on 28 ?
>
> No. Scanning for conflicting traffic is always an issue at
> uncontrolled fields (or airports with operating control towers for
> that matter).
>
> You should be aware of these Additional Remarks for Truckee airport
> that may influence your choice of runways:
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/KTRK
> - SUMMER DENSITY ALTITUDES IN AFTERNOON FREQUENTLY EXCEED 9000'.
> - DOWN DRAFTS MAY BE ENCOUNTERED EXPC WINDSHEAR.

I am acutely aware of such, which is why I don't want to use 19.
The folks who tow gliders were all on 19, and they went out just fine.
Guess the gliders behind did not want the cross wind.


>
> Additionally, you should be aware that the local residents are
> attempting to close the airport due to noise complaints, so pilots
> using the airport would be well advised to avoid operating over the
> city located off the departure end of runway 25:

This sucks. When the hills catch fire, where do they plan to let
the fire fighting aircraft take off ? What if the access road is
blocked,
and the only possibility of fire fighting is from the air ?

There are some houses on the golf course off the departure end of 19,
and seems most of the city is west, north west of runway 28 departure
end. If one departs straight out on 28, I'd say that is more preferred
with a smaller noise footprint.

>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/region/2005/050107ca3.html
> Truckee loses airport board majority
> The three new members of the Truckee-Tahoe Airport District
> elected to the five-member board in November are members of a
> group that wants to limit growth of the Truckee-Tahoe Airport.
> Their candidacy was supported by the Community Airport Restoration
> Effort (CARE) that had raised concerns about land-use and noise
> related to the airport. Their victory came after an emotional and
> heavily funded fight. Spending by opponents and proponents totaled
> more than $100,000. AOPA had weighed in on the issues with a
> series of newspaper ads educating the voters about the value of
> the airport. "We don't know what it means for the airport yet,
> because we have seen no specific proposals from the CARE
> candidates," said Roger Cohen, AOPA vice president of regional
> affairs. "But in terms of long-term viability, the airport has
> received numerous federal airport grants, and, therefore, the
> district is obligated to operate the airport for at least 20
> years. They also have grants for land acquisition, and those
> grants obligate the district to use that land as an airport in
> perpetuity."
>
> January 7, 2005

The datestamp is from 2 years ago. Hope things have changed since
then.

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.

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

wrote:
> I am acutely aware of such, which is why I don't want to use 19.
> The folks who tow gliders were all on 19, and they went out just fine.
> Guess the gliders behind did not want the cross wind.

Crosswind isn't a big issue for glider towing, nor is turbulence, tow
and glider pilots are pretty used to that, especially if they operate
near mountains. I rather guess that they know their local wind systems
pretty well and just fly where they climb best. Besides, towing
operations tend to be noisy, so they usually also tend to choose a route
which doesn't upset their neighbours too much.

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

Touche