In my case I've only been at it a year. Gimme a chance! :D

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

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?

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

Bar Shaker

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Grass Landings
 

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:

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.

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

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.

"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 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.

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.

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.

very good point

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

John F

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?

Each one is different
 

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.

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.

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!

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.

What's the problem with landing on grass then?

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=133958

:D:D:D

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".

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?

JF
Isee your arguement - less probability of engine quitting than runnning off the end, when inexperienced - makes sense.

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

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

Monocock They are also for use when ATC say "G-ABCD due following traffic expedite next exit"