What is it about landing on grass?
 

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.

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

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.

Just on that particular point, there are some shots here of some reasonably heavy metal parked quite happily at the delightful little 600m sloping grass strip at Verchocq near Le Touquet. Very well worth a visit by the way both for the strip itself and the food!

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.

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.

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

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

TonyR
 

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 !!!!!!!!.

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

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).

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.....

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.

still fun !
 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Whirly wrote:
A very effective way for demi-gods to preserve their status!

FD

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.

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.

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

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 !.

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

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 :rolleyes:

We talked about this here

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

...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.

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.

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'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!!

I find grass more forgiving!! :)

DOC

:{ 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.

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.