We can all learn from that!

[d192049d]

Sat doing my power checks at my rather challenging local grass airfield on Sunday and witnessed some poor sole attempt to land his 172 /182 (not sure which) and almost come to grief. Bounced twice, wheelbarrowed on the third with the prop impacting the surface, and then a very late go-around with early flap retraction and subsequent sink before just missing the trees and wires.

Lessons to be learnt
1, If you have not been there before and you are not current flying in/out of small grass strips, do not attempt it.
2, In the Go around be careful with the flap retraction especially on Cessna's as it so easy to go from drag flap to no flap in haste.
3, Watch your speeds, if you currently are over the fence at 65 knots it is more likely to be 55 for a small grass field. Have you ever landed at this speed?

Thankfully an expensive but happy ending and there but for the grace of god go I!

[Monocock]

d192049d

It is for the very reasons mentioned above that so many private strip operators (including myself) are becoming increasingly nervous of the tarmac brigade venturing out of their natural habitats. Some seem to believe that because their a/c is deemed as a "strip" machine that it will do what it says on the box.

There are some basic skills required to get these things down safely (and up again).

I also wonder how many people are not actually insured when they go into these places.....very few bother actually finding this out.

[2Donkeys]

and witnessed some poor sole

Sound's fishy. Was this near DVR.?:D:D

[rustle]

Welcome back, 2D.

Not seen you around these parts for a while...

[IO540]

d192049d

If his prop actually impacted the surface, that is a bill of around £10,000-£15,000 if done properly (prop repair / new prop blades / whole new prop / shock load inspection). I hope somebody told him that he had a prop strike (he may not have realised) because engine damage can occur without obvious prop damage especially on grass. The next person to fly it might get a suprise. I would also contact the CAA-registered owner because many renters don't report awful landings, so the "suprise" the next renter gets may be a gear collapse.

On a more general point, most PPLs are not taught the full version of working out the aircraft landing/takeoff performance. I never trained in a 172/182 so don't know what documentation they come with, but then I never saw a POH for anything at all during my PPL training. What I now fly (TB20) comes with a very complete graphical diagram where you start with the OAT and airfield elevation, then move along to the weight (this gives you the Vr etc) then move on to the obstacle height etc.... If people were taught this, they wouldn't do what is described as often.

I know I go on about this but PPL training is generally c**p. The whole system hangs together only because nearly all PPLs chuck it in almost right away.

[High Wing Drifter]

I was quite interested to read about old aviation practice when it was standard to land light aircraft in a glide. I think the reason was that it was assumed the engine would quit at these critical moments so if you didn't need the engine then don't rely on it. Got me thinking what good practice this would generally be. It must really help in judging distances all types of approaches.

[QDMQDMQDM]

It is for the very reasons mentioned above that so many private strip operators (including myself) are becoming increasingly nervous of the tarmac brigade venturing out of their natural habitats. Some seem to believe that because their a/c is deemed as a "strip" machine that it will do what it says on the box.

We stood and watched a Warrior try to get out of Eggesford on RW11 four-up about a month ago. 'Why's it taxiing back so fast?' We thought.

Alas, it was trying to take off! Off the end of the strip, 50 yards through the pre-silage grass, just about into the air, then up the hill in ground effect, NEXT to the big tree. They survived with inches to spare.

I was ready to run, but there would have been nothing to run for. They were nice people and I'm sure if any is reading this, they know who I mean.

Spam cans and strips mix only with the greatest of caution.

QDM

[Flyin'Dutch']

IO,

I understand that a shockload is only deemed to have happened if the engine is stopped by the impact. That was what I was told before.

FD

(Quick to point out that I did not ask because I'd had one or think that a machine exposed to the escapades as described should not get a proper inspection, just curious to find out whether that statement was true! Genghis where are you!?!)

[FNG]

I once sat at the hold at a small airfield (old WW2 base, crumbly runways, but not that tricky) watching a guy in a C150 appearing at first to do jolly well with the horrid crosswind, only to bounce, do some PIOs, wheelbarrow, and end up on his nose. Ouch. Going around from the flare (or even later) can still be a good idea, as I reminded myself yesterday whilst leaping and bounding along the runway at Compton Abbas.

[Aussie Andy]

If people were taught this...I thought everyone was taught this: I was anyway (learned in 2000, JAR syllabus). Pretty amazed to think people are flying around without knowing how to do the performance calcs from the POH: is this really true?

I have also found on several occasions when renting from clubs in the US and in Oz that I have been required to take an open-book (POH) test to confirm I know how to do this, especially for hot'n'high scenarios: presumably many people have to do this from time to time for the same reason?

But I think the problem may be, having learned it is forgotten and people get lazy.

Andy

[MikeeB]

I've never used it since getting my PPL. That's probably a sad reflection on my part for a number of reasons:

1) I've only landed at places that I obviouslly don't need to worry about it
2) I've almost only flown a PA28 with one passenger
3) 95% of my flying has been in and out of the same place
4) I'm now doing Aero's (see point 3) (not in PA28 either ;)

I doubt I'm the only person like this, but it does come into my mind now and again that I should practise such skills.

[Bingles]

It's all to do with cost as usual.... while I was committed to getting my PPL the money was secondary and I was flying every week. Now I'm lucky if I can afford once a month - and when I do get up there its not to practice all the essential skills. I've already had serious thoughts about stopping altogether as I can't afford to stay as safe as I know I should.

[A and C]

Please don't confuse the average PPL training with the training that you had , it's as different as chalk and cheese !.

[High Wing Drifter]

Performance is in the JAA sillybus. But I was not tested on the charts. Only on W&B and questions labout flaps and tailwinds and stuff.

[Dewdrop]

A and C please tell me more. What do you regard as an average PPL Pilot ?

[Evo]

I thought everyone was taught this: I was anyway (learned in 2000, JAR syllabus). Pretty amazed to think people are flying around without knowing how to do the performance calcs from the POH: is this really true?


I was taught it, and had to demonstrate weight & balance and performance calculations in front of the examiner during my skills test. I was under the impression that this was standard practice.

And doesn't the flight performance & planning exam cover it?

[rustle]

Yup - I had to, too. (1999 - on the cusp of CAA/JAA changeover)

[A and C]

It is not the average PPL that I was on about it is the standard of training , That depends on the attitude and skill of your instructor (assuming that the student is willing to study).

Ausie Andy was lucky enough to walk into a club that has mostly older instructors that are not clammering to get an airline job and just enjoy instructing , in fact AA's instructor won Flyer magazine instructor of the year award a year or two back.

It is very hard for a pilot to fly well if the instruction he/she receves is "lackluster" because of poor instructor attitude.

[Aussie Andy]

I think A and C is making a good point: the trouble is I have no experience to compare against what I perceive to have been very professional standards at the British Airways Flying Club (http://www.bafc.co.uk) at Wycombe (I hasten to add that reports of Wycombe Air Centre at the same airfield are also generally positive as far as I have heard).

I think it's not only about individual instructors. Keith A was great - a very practical and conscientious/serious attitude (in the air at least ;)!) borne of years of practical non-pilot operational RAF experience (although he has since left and is in fact flying with BMI out of East Midlands now), but I have found all the instructors I have flown with at Wycombe to have very high standards. I think there are two reasons: a) the guys / girls themselves are mature high-calibre people; and b) moreover the boss - CFI John Harthill - rules the roost with a notoriously firm hand and ensures no-one (student, PPL qualified club member or instructor!) ever forgets what the standards are! I swear the guy can see what we're doing even when we are 40NM north of the airfield! :eek:

But as I say, I have little experience of training to compare this with (other than the odd check-ride with other clubs in the UK and elsewhere as mentioned). I hear people say that not all training organisations are like this, but then I also hear others speak just as highly of other places.

Andy

[Johnm]

I've done this but rarely, but I do do it and my training was JAR in 2001/2.

Last time I really sweated over it was in France in Arrow with 38 degrees C to contend with and some concern over how much wine and cheese I dared load!

[S-Works]

I operate a spam can out of a grass strip that is very short and narrow. Weight and balance are critical as is flying the numbers and correct short field technique. But somedays when it is hot and humd it makes my bum clench!!!

There is no reason why a spam can can't be flow out of most farm strips it just takes some thinking and solid pilot skills.

[MLS-12D]

I was taught, and tested on, takeoff and landing calculations. I have also had to work them out once or twice as part of the check-out process before renting various new types. But really I never bother with such matters in 'real life', for essentially the same reasons that MikeeB lists.

I do think that anyone contemplating landing or taking off from a new-to-them short and/or rough strip should do the calculations ... and triple check them ... and if possible speak to someone familiar with the strip. Best of all, eschew PA28s and other nosewheel airplanes (fine aircraft for touring, but not for this sort of thing: horses for courses).

[MichaelJP59]

There is no reason why a spam can can't be flow out of most farm strips it just takes some thinking and solid pilot skills.

Forgive the silly question from a PPL trainee, but what's the definition of a spam can? I'm inferring that it's something like a Cessna 150, but is it a derogatory description?

Thanks,
- Michael

[Kolibear]

'Spam can' is a generic term for C150/PA28, in fact most all-metal light aircraft are rudely called 'spam-cans' .

Its a bit harsh really, but take comfort that the P-51 Mustang was originally called 'The Spam Can' and thats an aircraft most prooners would dearly like a trip in.

[MichaelJP59]

'Spam can' is a generic term for C150/PA28, in fact most all-metal light aircraft are rudely called 'spam-cans'

Thanks, Kolibear.

So there must a hierarchy involved, what's the generally accepted pecking-order for GA aircraft then?

- Michael

[FNG]

"Spam Can" tends to be used of the mass market American aircraft such as C150 to 172 and PA 28, particularly by arrogant gits such as me who fly things made out of wood. The term is more or less derogatory, but can be used affectionately, as in "G-SPAM is only a spamcan, but we love it". It's not just about being made of metal, as people would not tend to call Socatas, Cirruses (Cirrii?), Pups, Rallyes, Kolibers, and so forth, spam cans.

The heirarchy is as with cars, and goes as follows:-

(1) Whatever you fly yourself is great.
(2) Whatever other people fly, if not the same as (1), is a POS.

Does this help?

[Fly Stimulator]

On a point of order, Cirrii are (mostly) not made of metal.

Perhaps somebody needs to invent a derogatory term for composite aircraft just to keep things fair.

[MLS-12D]

what's the generally accepted pecking-order for GA aircraft?Michael,

You've opened a can of worms there! I think that it's fair to say that "there are many opinions, but no definitive answer".

Many pilots would tell you that high performance singles like Bonanzas and Mooneys are at the top of the heap ... and indeed that's probably true, if IFR stuff is your game (although even such relatively sophisticated airplanes are trumped by cabin-class twins and Piper's Meridian). Others would say that nosedragger airplanes are for sissys, and that 'real pilots' fly tailwheel bushplanes (C185, PA-18, DHC-2, FBA-2C1, etc.). On the other hand, you'd get a lot of votes for aerobatic airplanes (Pitts, Extra, etc.), or floatplanes.

Generally speaking, the more expensive and more difficult to fly a 'plane is, the more status it has ... but even that rule of thumb is subject to exceptions, e.g. the reverse snob appeal of a pristine J-3 Cub or a vintage Ercoupe.

Most people would agree that common, easy-fly airplanes like the C-172 and PA28 are at the bottom of the status scale ... but if pushed, those same pilots would grudgingly admit that most of their experience is in those same airplanes, and that they are economic,efficient aircraft for most practical purposes (training, $100 hamburgers, medium-distance touring, etc.).

I throw out for consideration the following two propositions that I have found to be true, in my own limited experience:

(1) no matter how fast/expensive/fancy/etc. an airplane is, it's always possible to find one that is 'better';

(2) in their own way, virtually all aircraft are enjoyable to fly.

MLS-12D

[MichaelJP59]

You've opened a can of worms there!

I didn't mean to hijack the thread, just noticed that there seemed to be quite a few comments recently about poor approaches to grass strips, and most seemed to be "spam-cans"!

I learn in a spam-can C150, but hopefully once I've got my licence I can branch out into more interesting types. Personally, I'd love to learn to fly a Pitts biplane as I've always thought they looked fantastic, but from what everyone says they are a real handful in the circuit.

- Michael

[MLS-12D]

I'd love to learn to fly a Pitts biplane as I've always thought they looked fantastic, but from what everyone says they are a real handful in the circuit.Don't be put off. There are any number of airplanes with reputations for being 'tricky' Sometimes it's true, but often the people expressing such opinions are merely repeating received wisdom and have no personal experience of the type.

I believe that there are very, very few aircraft that can't be mastered by a private pilot of average skill, assuming a reasonable level of dedication and quality instruction. Personally, I'm (still) learning to fly the Harvard. Is it a challenge? Sure. Absolutely. Will I eventually fly it with confidence? You betcha. (Am I an ace pilot? No way! :ugh: )

If you really want to learn to fly the Pitts (never done it myself), don't let your apprehension stop you from living your dream ... save your money and then make the pilgramage to fly with Budd Davisson (http://www.airbum.com/PittsFlightTraining.html) or one of his competitors.

[NinjaBill]

Since youre in Sheffield, if you can go up the road to Full Sutton, you can go and have a go in an S2A, its about £200 an hour, but most aeros flights are for 40 mins, so that about £130, and you can log it towards the 45 hrs required for your ppl, and towards the 2 hours of stalling and spinning you need to complete.

:ok:

Im currently flying there in the firefly, trying to get sufficiently proficient to fly in the beginners aeros comp at sherburn, where both myself and MikeeB will be competing for last place.

NB

[Andy_R]

And if you like the Pitts you can always look at something like the Starduster (PFA type) which apparently is less of a handful but still has the looks. Not that I am saying you wouldn't one day be capable of handling a Pitts, you understand ;)

[FNG]

The Starduster is, in my opinion, a bit dull. The ailerons are heavy and the roll rate is unspectacular. It does, however, have some of the charm of an open cockpit biplane and climbs quite well. The Pitts is a bit faster than most GA types on the approach, and you have to get on top of side-slipping for aircraft of this category.

[QDMQDMQDM]

Perhaps somebody needs to invent a derogatory term for composite aircraft just to keep things fair.

No need. There is already: 'Plastic aircraft'.

QDM

[Flyin'Dutch']

No need. There is already: 'Plastic aircraft'.

You're being polite QDM!

They are Airfix models

:D

FD (Cirrus lover and Janus CT driver = fancy glider)

[MichaelJP59]

Thanks for the Pitts advice, certainly something to look forward to for the future, I would guess I need to get my PPL and then get some basic taildragger experience before having a hope with something so twitchy!

Here's a taildragger question though - at one time all aircraft were this configuration, certainly up to WW2. So everyone presumably learnt on them! It now seems to be classed as an advanced skill, I wondered if one of the main reasons was that in the "old days" airfields were just a big grass field and you could always land into the wind?

A lot of the GA fields now seem to be converted WW2 bases like Gamston and Sandtoft up here, but they only have one of the three runways working.

I've got an old flying manual from 1916 and it doesn't even mention crosswinds!

- Michael

[FNG]

It's partly to do with changes in airfields as you say, but also partly to do with the skill of flying tailwheel aircraft becoming rare amongst instructors, so that nowadays tailwheel flying is presented as a big deal, whereas our grandads soloed Tiger Moths in three to six hours. Also, to be frank, tailwheel pilots don't really mind the generation of a faux mystique associated with flying "real" aeroplanes. Bear in mind that, as appears from another thread, some instructors seem to think that landing on grass is an arcane specialist skill.

I recommend doing your tailwheel tick on a Cub, as it's a good generic type of tailwheeler, and a delightful aeroplane.

Even better idea: do what NinjaBill did and obtain your PPL in the Cap 10 at Sherburn. Thereafter, transitioning to a Pitts ought to be no big deal.

[NinjaBill]

When I first decided to fly the Cap 10, instead of a C150 for my ppl (after doing about 10 hrs in the c150) i was told it would be a little more difficult to land, but if i kept to the speeds in the POH, and landed not far past the numbers, then it wouldnt be a problem, and that was landing on about 600m of grass, and that it may be a bit more difficult to taxi.

Now after reading a few days of pprune, I find that not only landing a taildragger is almost impossibly hard, that I must have almost suicidal tendancies for trying to land on GRASS as well.

In fact, i think i might as well stop it right now, and find somewhere with at least 2000m of tarmac before landing anything more tricky than a pa28, which i shall do so using a trickle of power, while approaching at POH speed + 20kts, and landing half way up the runway, before 'roasting the brakes' :\

NB

[whatunion]

x

[MLS-12D]

NinjaBill: Sounds like you have already figured out the standard spam can landing technique ... I'm sure that the instructor will be able to sign off your nosedragger conversion in no time! :D

[LowNSlow]

or do what Tiger_Moth did and do the whole PPL (except the instrument bit) on, guess what, a Tiger Moth. :ok: :ok:

[whatunion]

michale the reason your 1916 manual dosnt cover crosswinds is because no one ever landed in a crosswind. an airfield was just that, a field.

you can learn to land a taildragger to a small extent by learning to land a trike and holding off and off rather than just letting it arrive. same with take off, try holding a constant nose attitude without lifting off, let the a/c fly off itself

ps did you buy your manual on ebay.

[MichaelJP59]

ps did you buy your manual on ebay

No, it's actually a reprint that was included in the box with a WW1 flight sim called "Flying Corps" many years ago.

It's called "Practical Flying" and makes for very interesting reading. The terminology is different, for example, the book always talks about "getting off" rather than taking off.

- Michael

[whatunion]

i asked because i sold an original on ebay last year.

getting off, yes i remember that, in the book i mean.

notice no mention of spinning, you were dead after that.

and a section on crashing, everyone did it!!!!

pitts by the way are not just a handful in the circuit, i watched a experienced aerobatic pilot burn to death in front of me in one many years ago.

presumably he though the pitts were easy to recover from stalls too. c of g and weight taught him his last lesson

[24Right]

Ninjabill

Sure you weren't at Gamston to see me land the PA28 last weekend - it certainly seems a spookily accurate description?

Just going back to spam can hierarchy, there is even a pecking order within the spamcans. I fly a PA28 and so look up to the Arrow, with its turbo engine and retractable gear.

On the other hand mine is a PA28-236 Dakota and so goes quite fast, so I look down on the mere PA28 140 drivers who can't get out of a 600m field with both fuel and a pilot without decorating the gear with barbed wire and leaves.

Sad isn't it:O

24R

[Flyin'Dutch']

24R,

So you can not make the community laff by transmitting that you are a PA28RRR rrrrrr, but instead disappoint them by stating you are a Dakota!

:D

FD

[Aussie Andy]

I also fly a Dakota (G-ODAK from BA flying club)... I think its better than an Arrow any day as the Arrows I have flown have had less load carrying capacity due to the weight of all that gear, which kind of defeats the purpose of the gear a bit!

But I have on occasion disappointed people when stating I would visit in a Dakota - and they expected a DC-3!

Andy :p