Narrative:

On two occasions; while departing mtj; there was conflicting traffic which made normal procedures not practical and unsafe. I think a review of the conditions of preferential runways; instrument training and transit traffic is warranted. Several factors are unusual at montrose. The two runways; 13/31 and 17/35; form an oblique T. While not intersecting; turbine traffic favors 17/35 primarily the longer length. As the city is south of the airport; landing turbines favor 17 and departing on 35. General aviation seems to prefer 13/31 since parking is located at the departure end of 31. When landing on 13 you have a short taxi to parking. The complications and safety compromise arise from using 35 for takeoff.practical noise reduction protocol favors 35 for turbine takeoff to avoid the city and for the longer length runway. However that involves crossing the frequently active 13/31 due to favorable winds and FBO proximity. More than once there has been traffic arriving from the east and the west. While two taxiways cross 31/13 to the end of 35; they converge shortly at the takeoff position with some confusion of who is going first. Montrose also seems to be enjoying a good increase in student traffic. The result is the frequent use of a practice ILS on an arc to 17. This is against traffic maneuver for departures on the preferred turbine departure on 35 with a turn to the northwest and the arc.when my time came for departure with several practice ILS being conducted I considered the 'normal' departure procedure was not safe and I turned to the east and then south to avoid any potential conflict. In particular; the last time I avoided IFR flight plans and procedures so that I could remain on the CTAF frequency to enhance my situational awareness for better see and be seen.most likely there is little money to build a tower at montrose. The two mjt runway options; non-parallel and with differing lengths; present very different decisions and require different values for the pilot at the crucial moment of takeoff that a single runway operation. Decisions will depend on many factors besides the usual weather and reported traffic; there will be specific airline operating requirements; the flight school training syllabus works with what is available; transit activity does not always use correct or adequate radio procedures; together with continual conflicts with preferential runways for landing and takeoffs all must be considered at the moment of departure to form a collision avoidance strategy. I have concluded a VFR see and be seen is the most appropriate to mitigate the compromising runway management system at montrose.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: The pilot of a small jet reported the unique runway interactions and difficulty for jet aircraft departing MTJ Runway 17/35 while considering noise; other traffic (including students); landing and departing Runway 13/31.

Narrative: On two occasions; while departing MTJ; there was conflicting traffic which made normal procedures not practical and unsafe. I think a review of the conditions of preferential runways; instrument training and transit traffic is warranted. Several factors are unusual at Montrose. The two runways; 13/31 and 17/35; form an oblique T. While not intersecting; turbine traffic favors 17/35 primarily the longer length. As the city is south of the airport; landing turbines favor 17 and departing on 35. General aviation seems to prefer 13/31 since parking is located at the departure end of 31. When landing on 13 you have a short taxi to parking. The complications and safety compromise arise from using 35 for takeoff.Practical noise reduction protocol favors 35 for turbine takeoff to avoid the city and for the longer length runway. However that involves crossing the frequently active 13/31 due to favorable winds and FBO proximity. More than once there has been traffic arriving from the east and the west. While two taxiways cross 31/13 to the end of 35; they converge shortly at the takeoff position with some confusion of who is going first. Montrose also seems to be enjoying a good increase in student traffic. The result is the frequent use of a practice ILS on an arc to 17. This is against traffic maneuver for departures on the preferred turbine departure on 35 with a turn to the northwest and the arc.When my time came for departure with several practice ILS being conducted I considered the 'normal' departure procedure was not safe and I turned to the east and then south to avoid any potential conflict. In particular; the last time I avoided IFR flight plans and procedures so that I could remain on the CTAF frequency to enhance my situational awareness for better see and be seen.Most likely there is little money to build a tower at Montrose. The two MJT runway options; non-parallel and with differing lengths; present very different decisions and require different values for the pilot at the crucial moment of takeoff that a single runway operation. Decisions will depend on many factors besides the usual weather and reported traffic; there will be specific airline operating requirements; the flight school training syllabus works with what is available; transit activity does not always use correct or adequate radio procedures; together with continual conflicts with preferential runways for landing and takeoffs all must be considered at the moment of departure to form a collision avoidance strategy. I have concluded a VFR see and be seen is the most appropriate to mitigate the compromising runway management system at Montrose.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.