What is it about landing on grass?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our twin syndicate does not allow use at grass airfields. Period.
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
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle
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 !.
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 !.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it help if I had said "...in normal circumstances"?
I like your:
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
We talked about this here
I like your:
"This aircraft should not be opperated from grass runways unless airsafety or good airmanship dictate otherwise".
The rationale is simple. Dirt and **** getting into switches and stuff, plus a horrendously expensive AD completed recently
We talked about this here
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fowlmere is a perfect example. Manicured strip as smooth as a baby's bum.
Not so N, but still FG
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !!!!!!!!.
I can only shudder to think what this so-called instructor's attitude to spinning is !!!!!!!!.
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".
Not so N, but still FG
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: don't know, I'll ask
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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!!
Despite having been one of those who thought you couldn't take a Permit type abroad
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!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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????? 
)Saying that, a Boeing 737 landed on grass in British Columbia:
"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.
Last edited by klausk; 10th Jun 2004 at 18:49.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.