What is it about landing on grass?

[FNG]

I've noticed in a few threads recently that quite a few people have never landed on grass and/or aren't allowed to by their groups/clubs. Leaving aside people who fly mega twins, turboprops or whatever, (although as far as I know some of these land happily enough on grass when depositing jockeys at Newmarket and other such places), and assuming that people are flying the usual range of SEP aircraft, what is it that keeps people off the grass?*

This really is not intended to be a "grass roots flyers vs spam can drivers" thread (after all, plenty of people learn in spam cans at grass airfields), but is a genuine enquiry as to what people are told about grass runways by schools, clubs etc. Are there any statistics to suggest that operating on grass runways (leaving aside short farm strips) leads to more accidents? I cannot see why there should be.


* I refer, principally, to grass runways at mainstream airfields rather than small grass strips.

[TonyR]

I took an instructor flying a couple of weeks ago who had never landed on grass. He as turned out had been telling his students that grass was much to dangerous for PA28s and such like.

I mostly learned to fly in C172 and always in the early days found it much easier to land on grass.

Some of most delightful airfields in the UK and Ireland are grass, (Sherburn, Clonbalogue & Kilkenny come to mind) and the folks who drive on big wide roads are missing out on a lot of fun.

Tony

[Fly Stimulator]

Interesting question. There do seem to be some slightly odd assumptions around; the idea that permit aircraft are not allowed out of the UK being another example that has come up more than once.

It makes me wonder about where people normally go for advice and/or information on the large number of things which one doesn't know about flying on the day one's new licence drops through the letterbox.

In my case a significant amount of information has come from this very forum, and some through magazines. Not much came through talking to other pilots at my original flying club though, since hardly anybody there ever ventured far beyond the local area and only two had ever flown outside the UK. Perhaps that's not uncommon.

Leaving aside people who fly mega twins, turboprops or whatever, Just on that particular point, there are some shots here (http://www.leisure-airpark.com/pages/11.html) of some reasonably heavy metal parked quite happily at the delightful little 600m sloping grass strip at Verchocq (http://www.aero-delahaye.com/pages/0.html) near Le Touquet. Very well worth a visit by the way both for the strip itself and the food!

[FNG]

Blimey, Tony, it seems to me astonishing that a person could qualify as an instructor without ever landing a simple light aeroplane on a grass runway, and, moreover, suggest to others that it is dangerous to do so.

[maggioneato]

I was never allowed to fly a club aircraft in to grass strips. After moving to a less restrictive club, I discovered the delights of grass flying and am now based at the first strip I flew in to. I think most people are put off by the image of strip flying as it's presented by the flying schools, and they can't be bothered to teach the techniques necessary, or maybe they don't know how to. I would'nt go back to tarmac even in winter.

[Flyin'Dutch']

F,

But I think that is where the nub of the problem is.

Due to the structure of training a lot of instructors are very experienced in a very small area of aviation and never venture out of the mould.

Furthermore there is no formal further training/coaching which people can easily access.

Folks have to be lucky and either learn from friends they make at the airport or their syndicate or glean some from BBs and email lists.

The main reason why so many folks hang up their expensively acquired wings is that they don't get trained to be able the things for which they think they want their licences. As in they all think they get a licence to go touring but get made ready to bash the circuit at infinitum.

Yup some grassfields can be challenging but the vast majority are just fine for most of the GA fleet.

The airfields I mentioned on the other thread where people had flown to and claimed never to have been to a grass field (Duxford, Shoreham and Kemble) all have fine grass strips.

FD

[TonyR]

This instructor was to do his rating at Andrewsfield but went somewhere else because Andrewsfeld was in a mess during the winter a few years ago.

I took him into 600M of grass in the TB20 but I doubt if he will change his views on grass, the Idea of comming over the fence at 10ft and less than 60knots in a (lightly loaded) TB20 disturbed him. I know he told others that I was taking unnecessary risks flying into short grass airfields. (I never thought of 600M as being short).

His loss

Tony

[A and C]

The guy is a pratt and should not have an instructors rating , on another thread I have had a few things to say about the standard of instruction of late.

I can only shudder to think what this so called instructors attitude to spinning is !!!!!!!!.

[TonyR]

Yes I think so too, but thats the type of instructor we have in many flying clubs/schools today.

If I do ever get him up again I'll let you know what he thinks of spinning, or even being inverted.

Tony

[FNG]

Some instructors on the ATPL career path appear to have no interest in what you might term "aviation culture". I wonder what makes them want to fly? Is it perhaps an interest in technology, coupled with the remaining perception of airline flying as glamorous? (I must say that the glamour of punting a 737 full of mouth-breathing Big Brother viewers around Europe escapes me).

[Airbus Girl]

Well, for those reading who don't know much about grass strips.

You do need to have a think about them before landing at a strip for various reasons.

1. Some are short/ narrow, close to trees, obstacles, etc. in which case you need to have a bit of a think about landing distances, windshear, sink, etc. and also getting out again.

2. You need to know if the ground is wet, the grass long, or the surface rutted at all - all could affect your landing or take off seriously.

3. You might need to have a closer look at your performance figures for this reason (and do the calculations properly).

But other than that, not a problem! I love grass!!!!!
Much easier with a tailwheel.....

[Whirlybird]

When I first asked about landing on grass, I couldn't find anyone at the school who'd done so. I went ahead and did it anyway. When I asked about flying taildraggers, ditto. This included instructors. :eek: They're not all like that, but let's face it, someone who gets a PPL and an FI rating as a route to the airlines isn't going to fly a tailwheel aircraft into a short grass strip (or even a longer one) or necessarily empathise with someone else who wants to, are they?

The basic trouble is, students and new PPLs think every instructor is a demi-god and the fount of all knowledge on all things aviation. As a new(ish) rotary FI, I'll tell you, we're not!! An FI course teaches us a bit more about flying, and how to teach others to do it to a basic level, in the machines we're likely to be teaching on. That's all. We are not experts on other sorts of flying, other types of flying machine (which is why I show my lack of knowledge of f/w flying with monotonous regularity), aeronautical engineering, or the finer points of air law in obscure third world countries. We know how to teach you to fly and get through your ground exams, that's all.

However, I hope that if someone asked me about flying self-build helicopters in the Scottish Highlands, I'd at least give them an idea of where to go to find out about it. Putting people off, unless its something obviously dangerous, is not on, IMHO.

[A and C]

FNG.......... Visual into Corfu !.

Kick the autopilot out at 10,000ft and fly it like a small aircraft , it's great fun !

But I have to agree with you , just take a look at the "Greek Islands " thread on R&N and you will see that a lot of these people seem to think that a landing is not safe without an ILS.

[FNG]

A and C, a mate of mine who flies an Airbus when not hopping about in his Cub often switches off all the techno toys at Burnham and yams it into Heathrow by hand. The 12 year old FOs get very jumpy, apparently.

Strip flying is one thing, but I can't figure out the reluctance to take an ordinary trike into an ordinary grass runway on an ordinary airfield.

[ShyTorque]

The point about people specialising so much whilst being very good at what they do is not confined to the civilian world.

Was once taken to one side by an RAF CFS Standards pilot who was to be based at our grass airfield (3000ft plus and a choice of six runways) for a few weeks during a University Air Squadron summer camp. He told me he was quite worried about the thought because in over 25 years of flying, he had never landed on grass!

I was quite taken aback.

He asked about runway length, techniques (?) etc. I discussed short dry grass etc and told him just to watch out for the deep, wet, mud...

When I told him I had taken the Bullfrog into Netherthorpe (330m or so in those days, before that runway realignment / extension - to a huge 340m) and out again without any problem he seemed to be a little happier.

I couldn't resist scaring him again by talking about night flying onto grass with only temporary edge lighting and no white centreline markings...a big black hole to land in...hehehe
:E

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I can't figure out the reluctance to take an ordinary trike into an ordinary grass runway on an ordinary airfield Where I was taught to fly initial circuit training was on the tarmac but when the instructor decided it was worth trying to get the student more accurate the rather shorter and narrower grass runway was used instead. When I do circuit practice I generally use the grass.

Actually, getting authorised for a solo flight the other day, the instructor asked me why I thought I could go flying in that crosswind. I looked blank and said that my calculations showed it was OK on the cross grass runway. He hadn't thought of that and had only worked it out for the tarmac.

[DRJAD]

I learned to fly initially at Birmingham, then a few lessons in Leeds, then went to Sherburn to complete my PPL and get an IMCR.

I hasten to add that I do not fly taildraggers as yet, nor yet have I ventured into a farm strip.

However, being based at Sherburn, I frequently use grass and tarmac. It does not seem to be an issue, whether at Sherburn or elsewhere.

During instruction, though nothing overt was said about differences, the culture of the teaching I received made me careful to include the nature of the runway surface in my take-off and landing run calculations. Of course, that covers more than surface type, and has to include current surface conditions. Nevertheless, the culture made one alert to the sections of the theoretical material dealing with these matters, as well as practised in using both grass and hard surfaces. Obstacles on the approach or near to the runway must, of course, be considered, but that is necessarily part of planning for any flight, surely.

It is, though, the culture that needs to pervade, I believe, i.e. that whatever the runway type, judge it as well as possible, plan thoroughly, and there should be no undue problem.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Whirly wrote:
Putting people off, unless its something obviously dangerous, is not on, IMHO.
A very effective way for demi-gods to preserve their status!

FD

[Monocock]

I cannot help feeling that there is a perceived added risk to landing on grass. Many clubs will not let their aircraft be rented out if the renter intends to land on a private grass strip. Strangely, they are more than happy if the renter is heading for somewhere like Goodwood or Sywell. Perhaps they are concerned that the renter will become confident with a nice 700 metre grass strip and then try to get in and out of a 450 m sloping one ?

However, runway length aside, the average student can do a lot more damage to undercarriage on tarmac due to its unforgiving nature and added lateral stress it can cause to gear legs on touchdown.

Tarmac runways are more often than not a lot longer than their grass counterparts. Aircraft accelaration is undoubtedly better on concrete and braking is normally better due to the adhesion of tyres on the surface. However, a poorly timed kick of rudder to reduce crabbing will cleanly remove the undercarriage sometimes on tarmac. On grass it usually does little more than cause one person to hit their head on the window and the other to lurch the same way.

There is a very snobbish attitude towards grass strips and I must say it is amazing to think that some pilots have never actually landed on one. bpilatus is not allowed to land at Sandown for the fly-in as it is a group rule for the a/c to remain on tarmac.

What kind of pilots are we breeding these days?

Is it that the "Zero to ATPL" brigade are being so rushed through their syllabusses (syllabii?) that they just don't go to grass strips anymore? When they are asked to by a student do they just freeze at the thought?

I believe there is a club that actually do a Farm Strip Flying Course. Sounds like a great idea to me for those who want to discover this type of flying. If I have the choice of the two surfaces I will opt for grass everytime and I still did when I had the PA28.

[rustle]

what is it that keeps people off the grass?*Training & club regs would be my guess.

My FTO didn't train students for grass operations even though there is a perfectly useable grass runway at the airfield.

My first grass landing was 24 months after I had done my PPL with a mate in his own aircraft. (Exactly the same aircraft the fto banned from grass airfields, an AA5B)

Our twin syndicate does not allow use at grass airfields. Period.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Our twin syndicate does not allow use at grass airfields. Period.

That is a sad state of affairs.

I can think of tarmac strips which are a lot worse than some of the better grass fields.

Fowlmere is a perfect example. Manicured strip as smooth as a baby's bum.

FD

[A and C]

In my opinion to ban your twin from grass totaly is dangerous in terms of airmanship and leagal liability and I shall outline why.

Some time back a low time twin pilot landed an aircraft on a hard runway in a crosswind that was outside limmits , the result was a lot of damage. When asked why he did not use the into wind grass runway the reply was " twins Can't land on grass".
A landing on the grass in this case would have been uneventfull with a touchdown speed of about 40kt groundspeed !.

This some clubs would have you beleave is the truth and it sets the low time pilots up for an accident.

I can see why people are reluctant to let some types use grass runways and for this reason I would advise the club rules to read something like this:- " This aircraft should not be opperated from grass runways unless airsafety or good airmanship dictate otherwise".

If you put additional limitations on an aircraft that lead the low time pilot into an accident then you can bet some legal type will be on your case.

Don't let it happen to you !.

[Flyin'Dutch']

A&C I agree with your sentiment but would make it even less descriptive.

'This aeroplane shall not be operated from RWYs that are not suitable for its safe operation'

FD

[rustle]

Would it help if I had said "...in normal circumstances"?

I like your: "This aircraft should not be opperated from grass runways unless airsafety or good airmanship dictate otherwise".and I believe that to be the spirit of our rule as well...

The rationale is simple. Dirt and **** getting into switches and stuff, plus a horrendously expensive AD completed recently :rolleyes:

We talked about this here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85049)

[Final 3 Greens]

Fowlmere is a perfect example. Manicured strip as smooth as a baby's bum. A lovely strip, but in a twin you have to decide whether you can live with the accelerate-stop performance of your aircraft on 700M and that's a personal judgement call on a private flight.

[FNG]

For those who say "club rules", I ask: "why?" What is the rationale for club rules banning grass? I can see the point re switches and things on more complex stuff, but what about a Mk 1 Spam Can? Doubly bizarre to train people not to fly from or to grass when there is a grass runway on the training field.

[R1200GS]

I'm learning at a grass strip and enjoy the feeling of flying from grass. It's the hard runways I have problems with!

[TonyR]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our twin syndicate does not allow use at grass airfields. Period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I spent some time flying a couple of Jockeys around in a Cessna 303 and the only tarmac I ever saw was at Oxford, Usually a pick up from a farmers field and on to a bit of flat ground at a racecourse.

I also flew skydivers in various Islanders, all from grass.

I was with a friend in Florida and he flew his E90 Kingair in to about 450 M of "turf" picked up two pax and off we went 4 up and 4 hours fuel.

I cant understand this not allowed into grass thing. Only difference to me is a bit more cleaning of the aircraft.

Tony

[Mike Cross]

Given the choice (as at Abingdon recently) I'll take the grass for landing and the hard surface for takeoff.

Reasons
Grass puts less stress on the u/c when landing. The spinup of the wheels is slower and it is MUCH more forgiving of sideways drift.

Hard surface gives better acceleration for take-off however this may be a bit of a red herring. As the speed builds the a/c gets lighter and the additional drag on grass probably diminishes so the real effect may be less than expected.

Grass requires a little more of a commodity some pilots seem reluctant to exercise, judgement. If it has been raining it takes a lot longer to dry out. Braking shouldn't really be mjuch of an issue. If you are having to stand on the brakes, whether on grass or concrete you are either a) Flying the approach badly or b) chancing your arm by going into something that's really too short for you.

b) is unlikely unless you have a displaced threshold or an obstructed approach because if your approach was good and you had to stand on the brakes you ain't going to get out again with the same load.:E

Fully accept that if it is muddy it might not be a good idea to cover the wheel bays and squat switches with gunk and there is the case of the Robin that caught fire due to dried grass in the spat being ignited by heat from the brake. Against that there are quite a few "hard" runways with a loose surface that can be thrown up.

[Milt]

Grass and Ground Effect

A touch more ground effect in the flare over grass.

Tried to measure it once but too many variables.

NASA may have tried to measure for a hard surface.

[High Wing Drifter]

FNG,

I just didn't during training for no reason at all. The group I joined, one member is absolutely paranoid about grass and managed to get a mandatory grass checkout into the contract. As I was more concerned about the a/c I would be sharing and as the people I share are, on the whole, actually very nice and easy to get on with people I overlooked this and have yet to get around to the checkout. The a/c in question is an AA5. Apparently the nose wheel is weak and the prop clearance close. The actual practical difficulty in handling them on grass seems to range from no issue to much sucking through teeth depending on who you talk to.

To answer your question, there is no rationale as I see it. Just unqualified opinion.

[Flyin'Dutch']

AA5 nosewheels only get broken by people not landing properly.

The initial AA5 maybe a tad more sensitive to this than the later marks as the elevator control is less due to the smaller elevators.

But for the rest they are just as suitable for grass as any of the other GA mounts.

FD

[MLS-12D]

The guy is a pratt and should not have an instructors rating, on another thread I have had a few things to say about the standard of instruction of late.
I can only shudder to think what this so-called instructor's attitude to spinning is !!!!!!!!.Sadly, it is a fact of life that many, perhaps most, of current instructors have rather narrow experiences to draw upon.

Here in Canada, it is typical for someone who wants to be an instructor (probably with the intention of using it as the first step on the aviation career ladder) to acquire a PPL, CPL and instructor's rating, all in short order in C-172s or equivalent FG airplanes. If the instructor's training is obtained through a college or university programme, he or she will also obtain a multi-IFR rating, usually in PA-44s. The instructor will not usually receive exposure to tailwheels, aerobatics, soaring, float flying, or extensive x-country flying.

IMHO, limiting one's flying to short-distance straight-and-level flying in one or two different types of Cessnas or Pipers does not provide sufficient depth to allow an instructor to provide a student with quality advice. And yet, I don't blame the poor old instructor: after all, they had to pay for their training out of their own pocket, all for the privilege of obtaining a very low-paying job. Is it really any surprise that their pre-instructional experience is restricted to the cheapest airplane type available, in the fastest time possible?

Fortunately, one can learn a lot by reading books and magazine articles, and by asking questions and exchanging opinions on forums like this one.

Some instructors on the ATPL career path appear to have no interest in what you might term "aviation culture". I agree 100%. Strange, isn't it? Books are cheap (or free, at the library) ... and yet you will have to search far and wide to find a flying instructor who is familiar with Richard Bach, Nevil Shute, Rinker Buck, Phillip Wills, or Antoine de Saint-Exupery. It's rather sad. :sad:

[FNG]

...or even Ernest Gann, the Airline Pilot's Airline Pilot, a man who could make poetry out of a description of flying on instruments in ice.

[Ludwig]

All my flying training including multi was done off grass, between 750 and 500 metres. I think a lot of the problems stem from instructors with very low hours and having no real experience themselves, and having learned on tarmac. It was always great fun to watch the visiting pilots on QXC fly in and do go-arounds or even end up in the hedges, and it all seemed to stem from on signal issue: used to miles of tarmac with high braking efficiency, they do not land on the numbers at a sensible (slow enough) speed. How many do you see touch down way beyond the numbers far to fast. Ok if you have a mile of tarmac left, but you get a 100 metres of so after the numbers on a 700 metre grass strip, and it can get very exciting, particularly if you are fast, and the grass is wet.

[TonyR]

There is more to it than not wanting to fly on grass, I think it goes back to why people learn to fly today.

I was obsessed with aircraft from the day I started School, My school playground ran onto the old Long Kesh airbase in Northern Ireland, which later became the infamous "Maze Prison" with the "H" blocks.

In 1961 when I started school it was a gliding site with the odd visit from a Cub or similar and a few WW2 wrecks for us to play in. I pestered the pilots to take me flying and at the age of 8 I had my first glider flight (without my parents knowlege). that was it I was hooked, and learned to fly at 17. No money but would work my ass off on the farm to pay for a flight.

Now, I think a lot of PPLs don't have the same burning desire to be a really good pilot. There seems to be a level at which they "have arrived" and don't want to progress any further. I hear things like, "wouldn't want to fly one of those old Cubs, look at the age of that" or "why would anyone want to fly a tailwheel". They buzz around the same bit of sky in the same spam can that they never really mastered.

That glider flight was 40 years ago and I am still obsessed and I will jump into anything with wings (almost) and will fly it until I master it and take it to the edge of the envelope, but that's me, and I suppose I find it hard to understand how other pilots don't have the same desire.

Tony

[Andy_R]

I'm starting to think I've been rather lucky in my training!!

Despite having been one of those who thought you couldn't take a Permit type abroad :O I have been lucky enough to have used all runways at my base (EGKA) which has led me to consider the best approach in the prevailing conditions. I have also been introduced to several grass only aerodromes. On the way back from my Skills Test, my examiner was even pointing out various smaller fields and strips I should make a point of visiting.

I am absolutley horrified that an instructor should never have landed at a grass field / strip and to actually try to persuade people it's dangerous is surely dreadfully wrong?

Granted, I now have 0.7 hours more tailwheel time than my instructor (total is 0.7 hours!!) but he is, by his own admission, unable to afford to look at alternative types of flying cos of his low wages. But he has always stressed that I should visit all types of airfield and I will continue to broaden my experience.

I am also maybe lucky with the school/club I am with cos I am allowed to go into some smaller / unlicensed fields. I read recently that many are not allowed into fields like Popham. Again have been encouraged to visit there (if only for the recommendation that they do nice cakes!!)

Surely even budding airline pilots should have the knowledge of landing into grass fields? Or is the system so concentrated on pushing out button pushers that we will soon be trusting our lives on a commercial aircraft to someone who has only flown a restricted type and to a restricted type of runway? I guess if EASA have their own way this will be how it is. Very sad.

Makes me feel very uneasy.


Monocock

The club you are thinking of is Clacton Aero Club. They do an 8 hour course (or longer) to introduce pilots to tailwheel and farm strip flying. And yes I am looking forward to it immensely!!

[DOC.400]

I find grass more forgiving!! :)

DOC

[klausk]

:{ Personally, I think a pilot should be able to put the plane down on grass and the only way to learn is to experience it (heck, why don't we learn how to fly planes altogether in simulators????? :yuk: )

Saying that, a Boeing 737 landed on grass in British Columbia: :ok:

"On September 21st, 1972, Hope Regional Airpark was host to an amazing event! A Boeing 737 landed and took off several times on our 4,600-foot grass runway.

Hope Airpark was chosen by the Boeing Corporation as the perfect laboratory to test the 737's performance on a grass field.

The plane was fitted with special low-pressure tires, and the runway was wetted by tanker trucks to test performance on wet grass.

Resulting tire ruts left by the 90,000-pound aircraft were measured and recorded by Boeing engineers.

The Boeing pilot was Lew Wallick Jr."

http://www.hopeflightfest.com/photos.html - scroll to the bottom of the page to see photos.

[MLS-12D]

Is the system so concentrated on pushing out button pushers that we will soon be trusting our lives on a commercial aircraft to someone who has only flown a restricted type and to a restricted type of runway?The answer is yes. Actually, I don't have a problem with that. An argument can be made that a pilot who has flown only a few types is safer (in one of those types) than someone who has experience in many (and is therefore more apt to be confused). And, of course, airline pilots have to undergo regular simulator checks, so they know all of the right procedures. Finally, I don't think that most airline pilots really need to know anything about grass strips ... the odds of making an impromptu landing at such a strip in a 777 are remote.

I do think that ideally an instructor should have broad experience; after all, many (probably most?) students do not intend to become airline pilots, and it would be desirable for an instructor to be able to assist them in learning about the many different opportunities that are available in recreational aviation.

[High Wing Drifter]

Now, I think a lot of PPLs don't have the same burning desire to be a really good pilot.
In my case I've only been at it a year. Gimme a chance! :D

[MLS-12D]

They buzz around the same bit of sky in the same spam can that they never really mastered.Don't waste your time worrying about such people: they quickly become bored, and then fade away from aviation to take up golf or whatever.

There are many (perhaps infinite) interesting challenges to flying, but one has to seek them out ... if one just bores endless holes in the sky, feet on the floor and one hand on the 'steering wheel', it is little more than an expensive waste of time.

[QDMQDMQDM]

They're not all like that, but let's face it, someone who gets a PPL and an FI rating as a route to the airlines isn't going to fly a tailwheel aircraft into a short grass strip (or even a longer one) or necessarily empathise with someone else who wants to, are they?

Teaches you a lot about flying though and when all the lights go out in a 200 tonne jet you still have to fly the bloody thing.

I have no experience of flying anything heavy at all, even a heavy, complex single, but in my naive little world I have to believe this is useful experience whatever you fly, and possibly essential.

QDM

[Kellvin]

Well, my flying school just got a few points reading this thread. I did a few touch and goes on grass as well as two or three takeoff's from the grass as part of my training.

The absolute best was doing a check out in Sweden to hire a c172. We flew up to a grass strip and over flew it. Noting the crosswind was totally across the strip and was about 15 knots he suggested this would be a good time to get used to Swedish conditions.

I was told that I could use half the strip only (eeek reduced to about 400 meters), first attempt a total screw up. second the same, third getting better. But, he insisted that he wanted to see one good touch and go before he would let me have the aircraft. Took eight attempts and he accepted the last one. My landing back at the grass strip we had taken off from was the best...but no cross wind there.

The guy was totally calm and relaxed during the entire event, gave me a short lecture on learning how to pronounce the Swedish VRP's better and handed me the keys to a top notch 172.
:ok:

[bar shaker]

I have no problem at all landing on grass.

Landing on Charlie or any other class A narcotic is a different matter ;) ;)






bs
ps. Good thread, please ignore me :D
pps. For those with no sense of humour... it was a joke.

[LowNSlow]

My early flying was all off grass, the first time I landed at Southampton I couldn't figure out which bit of the vast area to land on!

The club I flew with initially banned their AA-5A's from Sandown cos it was bumpy but would let them go everywhere else even WW with it's (then) washboard like runway.

[FNG]

Bars Shaker: well done, although it's a bit depressing that it took three pages before we got a spliff gag.

What we still haven't heard is a reasoned case for avoiding grass in ordinary single engined piston aircraft. I am still curious why this is adopted as policy by certain clubs and schools. Individual groups may make the decision based, perhaps, on their members' misunderstandings of their aircraft's capability, those misunderstandings being possibly fed by instructors with a narrow focus; but what about clubs? Is it simply nervousness amongst inexperienced instructors, or do insurers put the pressure on? A commonly reported type of accident involves overloaded low-powered aircraft failing to get safely airborne from grass runways, usually as a result of disregard for performance calculations, so perhaps that sort of thing filters through the insurers to the clubs?

[Flyin'Dutch']

Admittedly been only involved in a few aircraft and hence insuring the birds but never came across any limitation regarding grass airfileds or strips.

Suspect some excuses made up to suit, but happy to stand corrected for someone with a different experience.

FD

[Final 3 Greens]

Bar Shaker

Announcement by DJ heard in a night club years ago .....

"Don't drink and drive, take drugs and fly" :}

[High Wing Drifter]

What we still haven't heard is a reasoned case for avoiding grass in ordinary single engined piston aircraft.
Hmm. Possibly because the clubs insurers assume low currency. Landing on grass has to be assumed more difficult by insures because the CAA want you to add safety factors for t/o and landing. Could that be it?

[TonyR]

Perhaps there is little room for teaching pilots to use "common sense".

I find that many PPLs treat the instructor as GOD, and therefore don't go out with, or listen to other experienced pilots, where they might learn use their own judgement.

I have flown with a few really good guys who, while not instructors, had thousands of hours doing it for real.

[shortstripper]

Grass fearing instructors ... I ask you? :rolleyes:

A while back I posted a few times on an NPPL instructor thread within the Instructors forum. I came away with the impression that too many of the new generation instructors are full of pompus self gratification and an almost total disregard for anyone without some sort of "proffessional" qualification :hmmm: A few seem to think that a PPL simply can't have enough "in depth" knowledge to teach at PPL level ... just shows what Bl:mad:y fools some of them are!

As for grass ... I love the stuff. Green is my favourite colour, I rely on it to feed the cows which pay for my flying and it's just great to land on. It doesn't make nice wine though as I tried it once when I had a craze for home brewing :\

SS

[airtoad]

Learnt to fly at Derby - Eggington, grass nice short runways:p , fly Mr Cessna's 2 and 4 seat spam cans in and out of Popham, grass what's the problem? :confused:

Fly same in to farm strips, Garston farm, Draycott Farm, took some bickies to Aero Fab, Thanx for a very interesting afternoon guys.

Before drift on to different thread, you can meet some laid back people at the grass strips, those who stick to tarmac really missing out.

[Kolibear]

The only reason I can think of for schools etc banning their aircraft from grass is the uncertainty of the factoring effect on take-off and landing roll.

With a hard runway you know what you have got and the only effects you need to consider are slope and wind, which are obviously common to grass strips too.

With a grass runway, it starts to get a bit subjective, is the grass long or short? Is a bit of dew classed as wet grass or dry? Theres been no rain for a few days and the grass is dry, but the ground is still soft, does that class as dry or wet? Its all a matter of opinion.

Now you can insist that your students or renters either factor in long wet grass x1.3 (safety factor) whenever they use a grass strip and call the result their T/O & landing rolls or just ban your aircraft from grass all together.

[Capt. Manuvar]

My instructor was an hour builder (he's got a REAL job now) but he still taught me to take off and land from grass (so they all aren't that bad). My home airport has two short grass rwys and my club doesn't have any restrictions on flying from grass.
But I totally agree with kolibear that there are a lot more variables to deal with.
It's all down to airmanship at the end of the day. Schools don't necesarily have to teach people how to land on grass. What they have do is ensure that students have a strong sense of airmanship before they are let loose.
Unfortunataley many schools offer substandard training and then make up ridiculous rules and myths to cover their a$$es
Capt. m

[Dave Gittins]

I did my first 2 flights at Manchester, my first solo at Chester and then about 25 hours at Barton - after which I was pretty accustomed to grass, mostly bumpy, muddy etc.

A few years later I finished my PPL at Luton but doing circuits at Cambridge. On one occasion at Cambridge a Herc was on the runway and the controller asked me to switch to 23 grass, which I did. My instructor, who must have been inattentive for a moment, suddenly looked ahead and realised I was 10 feet short of the grass not the hard stuff and went ballistic that I was going to put his Cherokee on that stuff.

Nethertheless I did a perfect touch and go and went back to 23 main. It seemed that Shaun's only real problem was getting his aeroplane dirty - but I was not under any circumstances apart from engine failure, to go near grass again.

Now I fly off tarmac at Fairoaks and park on the grass, so the aeroplanes still get muddy.

In also fly into Sandown and Goodwood and it never occurred to me that I was going on to the dreaded grass, where I hadn't ventured for years, and apart from the absence of yellow lines to follow, was no deal at all. Certainly our club has no problems about grass at all, as the above are two pretty popular destinations.

I completely fail to see what anybody has against grass ... if it's short or there are adjacent obstacles, take the necessary precautions and adjust your "approach" accordingly.

It seems prety damn silly to me however that we all do lots of PFLs - universally onto grass - but it seesm that many, many people never get to find out what the stuff is like should they be forced to venture onto it. Why doesn't the syllabus insist on some "real" pfls onto a short grass strip as part of the training ?

Seems a bit brighter than risking the 500 foot rule all the time.

:confused:

[whatunion]

all runways should be grass, they minimise impact and they teach respectful braking. i say we should start a campaign to have all runways returned to grass. just think of all the airports that could afford to put in a second runway, all you need is a roller and some grass seed. anybody got the BAAs email address.

[bar shaker]

FNG, I nearly didn't but had consumed a huge amount of Grolsch at the time ;)

What this thread shows is that lots of pilots are really missing out. Not some, but most of the best fields in the UK are grass. En La Belle France, you will struggle to find a better welcome than the grass strips afford.

As has been said many times above, grass is much more forgiving (for which I am often grateful) than tarmac and all you new pilots/grass virgins should try it.

bs

[TonyR]

they minimise impact and they teach respectful braking

That is a good reason to learn strip flying, proper speed control and better landings.

Some of my early training flights was in G-BFBF, a PA28 140, with only the handbrake. I was taught that brakes were for power checks and for turning in a tailwheel a/c. NEVER to be used to slow down an aircraft.

Why do I see pilots at (EGAA) (BFS) (Aldergrove) having to stand on the brakes to stop before the first taxiway (1200 M) into the runway. Better to keep them off the grass.

[bookworm]

"Much more forgiving"? Not always. This thread has concentrated on the merits of grass runways, and on denigrating the pilots and instructors who avoid it. That's fair enough, but it's worth looking at the downsides too.

The major issue with a grass surface is not that it's green, but that it can be uneven. Surfaces vary, from the "billiard tables" to the "rollercoasters", so there's obviously no standard, but even the finest grass surface has the potential of hiding a rough patch that you wouldn't find on a tarmac strip. I say "potential" because you can take-off and land on a grass surface 100 times and not find the rough patch. But looking at accident rates overall, 99% success is not great!

Uneven may not be a problem -- it's very dependent on the aircraft. Having spent 10 years flying a Mooney with a very stiff undercarriage and minimal prop clearance, I can vouch for it being a problem for some. That's not to say that you can't operate a Mooney off grass -- you can, but the risks of an expensive but knock are higher.

Crosswind take-offs (in particular) also seem to be more challenging on grass. There you are ten knots below rotation relying on a little lateral grip from the wheels and ... whoops... the wheels just lost contact with the runway.

When you get to twins, it starts getting serious quickly. The Seneca fatal accident at Newmarket (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_500773.hcsp) was almost certainly a consequence of the surface. A prop strike on take-off in a twin is more than just expensive. Again, you can operate twins off poor surfaces, but it's important to think through the downsides.

Overall, I think that makes it even more important that pilot training includes some operation from grass, to build appreciation that it's different. Grass is great, but let's not take it for granted.

[whatunion]

Tony R, have you noticed that most a/c these days are not tailwheels. What would you do with a rapidly approaching ditch at the end of the field you have just landed in, remember your foolish instructors advice or take the common sense precaution of respectfully using the brakes.

Probably forgotten by most of you is that many scheduled airline services started off grass runways, Burnaston, Sywell, Jersey.

At Burnaston one day a DC3 landed long on wet grass and went straight across the A38, stopping in the transport cafe car park!

Three problems here 1. wet grass 2. landing deep 3. Rutting, something not mentioned here but a major consideration on grass. At burnaston serious rutting had been caused by the Canadair argonauts landing on the grass while training and positioning.

[John Farley]

One point I don’t think has been mentioned to date is that pilots who have ONLY landed on hard runways do need to think about the lack of runway perspective cues (width versus length) they will be faced with when landing on a grass field.

In the absence of VASIs this can lead to a bit more care being needed to stabilise the glide path angle within normal limits.

It is no big deal, but anybody who normally feels that glide path assessment is not their strong point should bear it in mind.

The secret of substituting for the lack of runway perspective stuff is to expand your scan a bit more both sides of the touchdown centreline and so try and visualise the perspective of the aerodrome as a whole. Again practice makes perfect.

One way to back up your visual assessment of how things are going on finals is to find an ‘inner marker’ type of ground feature known to be one or two miles out from touchdown and work out how high you should be when you cross it on the basis of 300 to 350 feet per mile from touchdown.

[whatunion]

very good point

[TonyR]

whatunion,

Sorry but I fly a Rallye club with crap brakes anyway, but I still hold that too many pilots are depending on brakes to slow down after landing much too fast.

[Monocock]

TonyR

I echo that entirely.

Brakes are for stopping at the right point on the fuel pump hard standing and at the parking lot.

If they are needed on the runway then it was a runway that was too short or the wrong direction was chosen.

[Polly Gnome]

I learnt on grass and found it quite difficult to land gently on a hard runway because the perspective felt wrong!

I start the flare when I can see 'blades of grass' instead of just 'green grass' . There wasn't anything similar on hard runways.

[whatunion]

polly try landing on disused runways with grass growing through the tarmac. otherwise find out who the most nervous instructor is at the airfield. go up with him and when he shouts jesus christ pull back and close the throttle.

monocock if you think brakes are just for stopping at the pumps i would love to take you into guernsey with a 35 knot crosswind and a threshold speed of 130 knots and no thrust reversers.

tony, dont be sorry you fly a rallye club be grateful, i would love to fly one again!

[TonyR]

Whatunion,

The thread was mostly about "light aircraft" I also fly a TB20 for touring and a Cessna 340 for a private company, but I still rarely use brakes on the runway (usually only when I've messed up)

But I've come to the conclusion that many pilots just want to fly from "big" airports and have no desire to mix with us "farmer" types who enjoy the freedom of the countryside airstrips.

I landed the Rallye in a big field a couple of weeks ago just for a chat with a friend who was grass cutting. This fella came running accross the field to inform me that he had called 999 when he saw me "crash", he was a pilot. I told him that he'd better wait at the gate to inform the services that no one was hurt & I just took off and went home. He then told my friend (also a pilot) that I should have had the aircraft checked by an engineer before take off after landing in such a place.

It is such a rare thing now to to see people land "off airport". it used to be grate fun during the haymaking season being able to just "drop in" and visit friends.

Tony

[Final 3 Greens]

John F

how high you should be when you cross it on the basis of 300 to 350 feet per mile from touchdown

I can see this for a twin, but what would you advise on single engine aircraft - 550-700 feet per mile depending on engine out/windmilling prop sink rate?

[jayemm]

The thread started on "Light Aircraft" and "Landing on Grass", which I assume was not necessarily just farm strips.

I fly a spamcam, and thoroughly enjoy it (although if I had the money, I'd definitely move up the GA snob hieirarchy without question ;) )

During my PPL I was well-trained on both tarmac and grass (perhaps because I told the Instructors I planned to use both, but they all thought it was a good idea and had no problems with it).

I use grass strips often, and have the following 3 golden rules:

1. Always, always phone ahead and get the PPR (irrespective of whether it's a farm strip or any other). If the owner is happy for you to land, don't be afraid to ask as many questions as possible to get an understanding of the area, of obstacles, conditions and so on. Above all, get permission. Often, the owner will want to know your experience and is the best judge of his/her strip, so might suggest you get more experience before landing there.

2. Always, always do the POH calculations and take notice of what they tell you.

3. Every single strip is different. This is the biggest point of all IMHO. Long grass, short grass, dry, wet, flat, bumpy, hard, spongy, rutted, fences, pylons, trees, dips, slopes, sheep, birds, walkers, stones, farm buildings; you name it, each one has a different combination of these.

One of the most challenging (for me) was Westbury-sub-Mendip (now closed) which was neither grass nor tarmac; but this has been discussed in another thread.

Don't let the anti-spamcan brigade put you off; but do follow the rules and believe what the calcs tell you.

On the brakes discussion, in my experience, it doesn't make any difference when the grass is wet; they don't work anyway!

Don't avoid landing on grass, because you miss out on too many wonderful locations. Get an Instructor to give you a couple of sessions and get someone with experience to go with you the first few times to build up some confidence and you'll be fine.

[Monocock]

whatunion

Ok, I take your point but I was generalising slightly.

So many times I see light a/c land and then there is the hard dip of the nose as the brakes are applied whilst there is still 400m to go!

In club aircraft it is more prevalent as those who own shy away from very heavy braking once they have paid for their first set of brake pads at the annual check.

[Smeagol]

I obtained my PPL nearly 40 years ago at Kiddlington when they only had grass! If my memory serves me correctly CSE Aviation operated the largest flying school in the country at the time and flew many twins (Commance, Navajo).

How times have changed!

[John Farley]

Final 3 Greens

I take your point that 3 to 3.5 deg is shallower than a lot of people fly SEP aircraft and I nearly put 400 to 450 feet per mile. But I decided that the shallower angle is what I would recommend for the case where somebody is going to have their first go at a grass field, perhaps solo. For this first approach it is more important to get the approach and landing right rather than be in a position to glide the rest of the way if the donk should quit.

I feel that shallower approaches give the best and most obvious cues about the angle you are flying and that the steeper you get the harder it is to judge the angle and so the easier it is to arrive at the flare point much steeper than you realised.

Once a runway pilot has overcome the ‘newness’ of setting up the approach to a grass field then like everything else they may modify their technique based on experience.

[vintage ATCO]

What's the problem with landing on grass then?

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133958

:D:D:D

[Keef]

I suppose I was lucky. My first instructor (now flying 737s) insisted on taking me into Ipswich as early as possible so that I could get used to grass. I never had a problem with grass, in that respect.

Where I did have a problem was when a muddy strip deposited a nice divot on the gear microswitch. Landing with two greens was definitely an "interesting" moment. (No, I didn't replace the divot and no, I don't play golf).

Another group member had the same experience the following year. We now have a group rule "No grass in winter or when it's muddy".

[whatunion]

smeagol i remember landing at oxford at night on the grass with goosenecks, best fun ever!

tony r your quite right, too deep, too fast, too high its called, tarmacitis.

but you are experienced, its all to easy for the low hour ppl to get it 'orribly wrong.

jayemm, great advice but also find out how many accidents there have been at that particular field, if i had followed my own advice i may not have landed at english bickenor near ross on wye.
i have never been into a short strip since and have no intention of (at least two people have been killed going in here.
can anyone tell me if english bickenor is still going?

[Final 3 Greens]

JF
But I decided that the shallower angle is what I would recommend for the case where somebody is going to have their first go at a grass field, perhaps solo Isee your arguement - less probability of engine quitting than runnning off the end, when inexperienced - makes sense.

[whatunion]

best short field landing i have ever seen was a comet at strathallan, beautifull landing and roll out, only problem was he took both main legs off crossing the fence.

whatunion says, to look cool you have to miss the fence, on both ends

[NinjaBill]

English Bicknor is still there, I have a friend who lives in the village at the bottom of the hill, and had a walk up there about 3 months ago. Decided against flying there after a quick look, as its still as scary looking as you describe it

[Final 3 Greens]

MonocockBrakes are for stopping at the right point on the fuel pump hard standing and at the parking lot. They are also for use when ATC say "G-ABCD due following traffic expedite next exit"

[TonyR]

When you pay for fixing your own you tell ATC, "sorry" will take next one.

[Final 3 Greens]

TonyR

If it's a busy mixed traffic airport you use regularly, that might not be the smartest of ideas, given that ATC decide the priority for taxi and a myriad of other things ... and they also remember voices pretty well in my experience :} .

If you cause a go around, especially if its commercial traffic, someone might just get the hump about that.

I'm not a heavy brake user, generally, but surely a degree of common sense and reasonableness comes into this - if one decides to land at an ATC airport, one should generally follow the clearances unless there is a compleeing reason not to.

BTW, I have paid for my own as well as renting.

[TonyR]

I was only trying to get a point accross about brakes. (wind up)

I think you will find I will always try to help out ATC, and will land long or short and will use barkes if necessary.

Tony

[High Wing Drifter]

It is good to call "Vacated" to if you think it maybe difficult to for the tower or the following a/c to determine.

However, I know I have done a well judged landing if I hardly need to touch the brakes and get off at the first exit at Blackbushe :O

Mind you, not using the brakes on an AA5 isn't really an option seeing as it is the only way to steer. The right brake needs to be ridden lightly for a few seconds to keep it straight on take-off too.

[TonyR]

HWD,

I hope you dont mind me giving you a tip about take off in an AA5.

As they are not the type to just leap into the air any use of brakes will prolong the t/o run.

Just start on the left of the runway, point the aircraft slightly to the right of centerline (only if your on a wide runway) and you will have rudder control by the time you are pointing down the runway. This can also be used also it there is a crosswind from your left, just point a bit further to the right

Tony

[High Wing Drifter]

Just start on the left of the runway, point the aircraft slightly to the right of centerline (only if your on a wide runway) and you will have rudder control by the time you are pointing down the runway.
Thanks for the tip Tony! It is quite obvious really when I stop to think :) I'll give it a go next flight. I fly from Blackbushe so plenty wide enough.

One of the guys in the share demonstrated how to start the take-off run from a perpendicular hold. He just opened the throttle to full and as well as accelerating did a sharp left and off went went! Not brave enough to try that yet :O

[24Right]

What I can't understand is why grass is perceived as so much more difficult. Given sufficient length (I trained and until recently did most of my flying from Netherthorpe, so I know all about short uphill runways!) I find grass so much easier to grease on to. If I'm taking pax who I want to impress (not that I ever would do so for such reasons, you understand) I would always choose grass to land on.

[Final 3 Greens]

Tony R

What's all this about wind up brakes then? ;)

[TonyR]

Do we all have to explain when were are winding people up or taking the piss?

Ther point is many pilots use the brakes too much.

If they all paid for fixing them they would think more (as you do with everything when you own it)

Tony

[Final 3 Greens]

Tony

Slight sense of humour failure on your side I think - note the smiley on my last post. Do I need to explain irony :)

[TonyR]

I must stop reading posts late at night.

[whatunion]

one thing i dont think any of u have mentioned 'on grass' is the mud it can throw up.

the day after i flew an aztec into agrass airfield i was flying a charter in an aztec when the pax behind me tapped me on the shoulder and said.

"look at that fuel pissing out of the wing"

the tank vent had been blocked up from the mud on the grass the day bfore. also i have known of similar pitot/static problems caused by mud as well as u/c probs.

in regard to commercial ops with large transports flying behind you. its the following pilots duty to ensure adequate spacing once he has visual contact. expedite clearing a runway dosnt nesecarrily mean speed up, its a warning there is an a/c behind you. surely you should always expedite the clearance of an active runway as a point of airmanship.

ps greasers on grass runway!!! have you never landed on a wet runway

[Final 3 Greens]

in regard to commercial ops with large transports flying behind you. its the following pilots duty to ensure adequate spacing once he has visual contact. expedite clearing a runway dosnt nesecarrily mean speed up, its a warning there is an a/c behind you. surely you should always expedite the clearance of an active runway as a point of airmanship Whatunion, are you implying that one should always use brakes? If I am landing on 1500M of tarmac, with no one else behind, what's the harm in rolling on a bit and letting the drag from the airframe and tyres reduce kinetic energy, rather than using the discs to convert it to heat?

On the other hand, if someone is closely behind, one can brake sensibly and exit via the first safe & available exit.

[Hersham Boy]

Wow - I thought this was going to be a jokey thread when I saw the title...

I learnt at Redhill. Only rwys available are grass. Ignoring the problems with drainage etc. I have always found grass to be a much easier surface than tarmac. A x/wind landing (crab, or wheel down) is less likely to rip the legs off on a slippy surface than a sticky one, surely?

I was always taught to be very ginger with the lowering of the nosewheel due to the bumpiness of the surface, but this is a good lesson any surface, given the likelihood of a good nosewheel shimmy on tarmac, isn't it?

I also witnessed a Citation come into and out of Redhill for some avionics work once. Just after the grass had been cut.

I was a little concerned at the amount of the loose green stuff covering the nose and cowlings but the two pilots seemed very calm about the whole issue.

Aside from a couple of nasty skids (wheels, not undergarments) during training on the damp green stuff, I reckon grass if nice and forgiving for suitable a/c (I'm sure there are UNsuitable a/c). Why tell students not to do it?

Hersh

[whatunion]

finals three greens

sorry yes i agree , i was thinking of the case of airmanship habit were you just expedite anyway.

at some airfields you never know who is behind you! esp if they are non radio

[Ojuka]

FNG:

"mounth-breathing big brother viewers"

Mouth Breathing! Love it! Do you mind if I steal that one off you? My colleagues and I have always referred to our pax as the "great unwashed".

[FNG]

Be my guest, Ojuka! The punters can also be referred to as "people who need help cutting up their food".