MaxCommunityDecision (Vote): “Intersection Departures”, A Conundrum!

MaxSez:” Intersection Section Departures (ISD) SHOULD Always be allowed unless they block the only Taxiway Intersection access to a full length runway” (IFATC MANUAL 7.1.6).

Clearly an “ISD”, this flow control procedure, is neglected or disallowed routinely on a continuing basis on all Servers by Pilots and Controllers alike.

I am and have been an advocate for “ISD” for IF aircraft who’s performance characteristics meet or exceed a short field or non-full length takeoff profile. Particularly at aerodromes with runway lengths that exceed an aircraft’s performance characteristics as noted in there airworthiness certification found on line. (“Heavy” Trash Haulers need not apply for sure.)

Accordingly, I suggest IFATC “Always” allow “ISD” at Pilots Discretion”, WX Conditions/Type permitting as an expeditor and flow control excelerator… Pilots of Short Field/non- Full Length TakeOffs capable A/C should choose as a 1st opinion an “Intersection Departure” rather than a long Taxi/Q wait as an expediter, Fuel/Time saver.
( Note: Refer to AIM 4.3.10 for specific ISD guidance)
What say you Community? (PLEASE DISREGARD YES, my Error)

  • ISD always:
  • No
  • Yes

0 voters



Thanks for bringing this up Max! I will happily share my opinion on this, and I mean no disrespect to you sir.

I will never do an intersection departure for one simple reason. Runway length is life.

Imagine you are in a Cessna 172, and you encounter an catastrophic engine failure right as you rotate, or perhaps you are not climbing as fast as you predicted and there is an obstacle at the end of the runway — I have read case studies where both of these scenarios have occurred. What happened in both cases? The pilot immediately set the aircraft back down on the runway and avoided catastrophe, because they had more runway than they needed.

Even if you are in an airliner, there is no such thing as having too much runway in front of you. As long as procedures and conditions allow, having the entire runway available to you is always the safest choice — especially when the only drawback is a slightly longer taxi time.


I also mean no disrespect, but I also do not believe that “No ISD” should be removed. Even planes that can take off using half the available runway don’t NEED to only give themselves half the runway - extra runway in front does no harm.

I’ve witnessed too many pilots use intersections to jump from 10th in line to 2nd, which isn’t fair to aircraft waiting ahead of them that cannot use anything other than full length. In addition, with the lack of wake turbulence present in IF, there is no real reason to cut a narrowbody in front of a heavy. Long taxi times are included in ATIS and pilots are just as capable of viewing taxi lines themselves. They are responsible for planning fuel and engine use accordingly.

1 Like

@Cessna_Driver. MaxSez: I identify with your opinion but experience dictates otherwise. Your case studies are GA related, failure to plan for Obstacle Clearance without performance problem is a recoverable Pilot Error routinely. Engine failure aborts are common and universal no matter the runway length. Each aircrafts Operation Handbook contains take off length grafics base on load factor, environmental conditions.etc. If performance characteristics are enable and the “V” rules are followed an ISD is acceptable based on available runway length. Successful ISD’'s are flown safely WW particularly at class B airports by all type. When you have 8/10k ft of concrete available and. your aircraft is capable of takeoff in 3000 feet on a 9000 foot runway why not an an ISD. An XCub needs 900 feet, a Caravan 1200 feet. Ect. You want to use full length in any aircraft at all times on IF go for it. Most real Commercial Pilots where time is money will choose an ISD.
Fly for real not SimBased. MaxSends

1 Like

Intersection departures all day.


@Cameron_Stone. MaxSez: Spoken like a true IFATC Acolyte. “Fairness” is for playgrounds. Your IFATC Manual and AIM Sez “Should Use them” (see Topic) Citation. ISD’s are expeditor and assist in flow control. IFATC that ignore ISD’s and cause delays or consider ISD’s illegal should Ghost the Pilot who attempts an ISD. I hope it’s me and you so we can resolve your petulant issue with Staff.

1 Like

Thank you for the reply. I do “fly for real”, and I will always use the full length when available to me. I do not doubt that you have far more experience than me at your age, and I will admit that my conclusion was GA based — I failed to consider the financial repercussions of taxiing full length. With that said, there are no financial repercussions in Infinite Flight besides my subscription, so I would rather use as much runway as I can. If the runway was excessively long, ex: 9,000 feet for an XCub, I would certainly consider an ISD depending on my location in relation to the runway. However, if I am in an A320 and the runway is 9,000 feet long, even though you can take off safely with much less than that, I would much prefer full length. On the topic of “flying for real”, another reason to do this is engine wear and noise — having a longer takeoff length means that you can derate your engines in most cases.


Love this topic and the discussion. It’s great to have a good ponder about this and look at this from as many sides as possible.

Let’s all agree that ultimately the pilot is responsible for the safety of the aircraft and that the controller provides a service to the pilot.

In light of this the ATC manual is written. Clearly intersection departures are there for a reason. The trick is just to apply them wisely.

It’s the ATC who determines the order in which pilots can line up take off. A pilot holding short further down the runway, not obstructing anyone, doesn’t harm anyone. Let him sit there, until it’s his turn. Jumping the queue only happens when the ATC let’s him leave before others.

As ATC, how do you determine ‘who is next’ for takeoff? Check the timestamp of the takeoff request.
(Works the same in situations where you have many aircrafts requesting pushback).

Double lineups
Allowing intersection departures may provide the ATC with the ability to expedite departure as he can lineup multiple (2) aircrafts one one runway. If the distance between them is long enough, this is quite an accepted way of working. I’ve seen it in real life in EHAM.


@azeeuwnl… MaxSez: Sage observations and opinions as alway my old friend.

I take exception to your “Jumping the Q” mind set. Of course the Ground Controller sets the Taxi order first unquestionably. When released from parking without a communications option to join the Q or Opt for an ISD the Pilot is in a quandary. To join the Q or do an ISD is a Pilots discretion situation. Until the Comm menu is enhanced offering the ISD option on Taxi authority the perception of gate crashing will continue to exist. ISD Procedure where introduced back in the day. Tower Controllers “Metering” takeoffs from the Threshold and Intersection Hold Shorts from parking to the Active Threshold or an Intersection Hold Line is not brain surgery. In high tempo OP’s Parking release holds, metering at the Threshold/Hold are efficient and used worldwide without ranker.

DOUBLE LINEUP’S. Now your on my wave length and in compliance with the IFATC Manual. Until the Comm menu is modified by adding an ISD option, SameO SameO. In the interim a concerted effort by IFATC Supervisor to Correct the present “Unfair and or Jumping the Q” mind set of the IFATC 10%, chaos, community divisions, ATIS ISD denials by the 10% and the hard feelings will continue .
Just sayin Old Man, Respectfully, Max Sends

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.