Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
advices? Thanks

drclive wrote:
> Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
> differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
> advices? Thanks

Rent a CFI?

No difference, just land normally...

Cheers Quilly

For four good books to read look at...
http://www.quilljar.btinternet.co.uk/covers.htm
Buy three or four altogether and get economy postage.

Grass can be long, short and even cut grass is a possible
problem since it can be trapped inside of wheel pants.
Animals live in grass and often dig holes or burrow and make
soft spots. In the winter, long grass can poke up through a
foot of snow and look OK.
A good, well maintained grass runway is a joy to land on.
It is mowed and raked, rolled and smoother than a golf
fairway.
Wet grass has very poor braking action. But a tail dragger
with a skid uses the grass as a brake.

Always call ahead if possible and find out about the current
condition of the grass and any problem spots. Always do a
soft field landing. Always do a low pass to look for
anything in or under the grass that could be a problem.

When you get there, walk the strip on foot.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"drclive" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that
describes the
| differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first
time, tips and
| advices? Thanks
|

drclive wrote:

> Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
> differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
> advices? Thanks

What sort of differences? Landing on grass isn't much different than
hard surface unless the grass is very tall, very wet, or hiding mud. :-)

A well-maintained grass runway is a pleasure to use. Quieter and softer
than asphalt and much cooler in the hot summer sun. You may have
slightly longer take-off rolls, but the difference isn't huge barring
what I mentioned above.


Matt

Ben Hallert wrote:

> drclive wrote:
>
>>Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
>>differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
>>advices? Thanks
>
>
> Rent a CFI?
>

A CFI to land on a grass strip? If he needs that then he better get his
money back from his original CFI.


Matt

Depends on the grass. Grass strips vary from putting green smooth to
plane riping holes, rocks and logs. Examine grass beforehand.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:14:25 +0100, Quilljar wrote:

> No difference, just land normally...

Incorrect advice.....

You want to land as softly and as slowly as possible on a grass strip.

Also want to keep the nosewheel off terra firma as long as possible so it
doesn't run the risk of "digging in" from the weight of the engine and prop
when the nose wheel does touch down.

After touchtown, the yoke should be full aft.

Taxiing on soft fields is also significantly different. You hold the yoke
back full aft and taxi with more power to ease the pressure of the nose
wheel.

Allen

On 17 Jun 2006 09:08:36 -0700, drclive wrote:

> Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
> differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
> advices? Thanks

Check out http://www.firstflight.com/lessons/flt07.htm for lesson on soft
field landings.

Allen

> > drclive wrote:
> >>Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
> >>differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
> >>advices? Thanks

Ben Hallert wrote:
> > Rent a CFI?

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> A CFI to land on a grass strip? If he needs that then he
> better get his money back from his original CFI.

Why is it so out of the question for him to get a CFI to go with him if
he's never landed on grass before? Maybe it's common where you are, but
in many places, you're not allowed to practice landing on anything but a
paved runway with rental aircraft while training for your private pilot
license. Most schools/clubs prohibit landing rental aircraft on
unimproved (grass, dirt, etc.) strips, regardless of your ratings. We
all should know how to do a soft-field landing, but if you've never done
it and would feel more comfortable (and are willing to pay for) bringing
a CFI with you, why should that be a problem or a reflection on anyone's
"original CFI"?

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:34:42 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

> drclive wrote:
>
>> Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
>> differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
>> advices? Thanks
>
> What sort of differences? Landing on grass isn't much different than
> hard surface unless the grass is very tall, very wet, or hiding mud. :-)

I'd have to disagree with you on this.

It also depends on the soil composition. If it's clay and dry and hard as
concrete, yes, no difference other then the grass that you describe above.

If it any other type of soil composition where the weight of the plane may
sink a little, then soft field take off and landing techniques are in order
(yoke full aft when on ground and prop is turning).

See my other postings on the technique.

Allen

On 17 Jun 2006 11:43:34 -0700, Doug wrote:

> Depends on the grass. Grass strips vary from putting green smooth to
> plane riping holes, rocks and logs. Examine grass beforehand.

*smile*

How does one do this from pattern altitude at an airport they have never
been to?

Allen

drclive wrote:
> Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
> differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
> advices? Thanks

Try google. I got plenty of hits with photos and techniques..

I should think a google search would give you plenty of reading
material! There is no great trick to landing on grass any differently
than on gravel, concrete, or asphalt! You will notice a difference in
stopping, a distinct difference on touchdown in the sounds and feeling,
and a little difference in taxi. All in all, no major differences and I
think too many people make a big to do about nothing. Kind of like
attitudes about flying tail draggers...?
I'd guess I've got 15-16,000 hours operating off grass/dirt/gravel or
unimproved strips in wide variety of aircraft including turbines, multi
engine, etc. really not a big deal.
Just make sure the condition of the strip is up to snuff and that can
be ascertained with a phone call. Practice your soft field techniques
and then go have some fun! I'm sure you will enjoy it. I certainly do.
Rocky
drclive wrote:
> Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
> differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
> advices? Thanks

In article >,
A Lieberman > wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:14:25 +0100, Quilljar wrote:
>
> > No difference, just land normally...
>
> Incorrect advice.....
>
> You want to land as softly and as slowly as possible on a grass strip.
>
> Also want to keep the nosewheel off terra firma as long as possible so it
> doesn't run the risk of "digging in" from the weight of the engine and prop
> when the nose wheel does touch down.
>
> After touchtown, the yoke should be full aft.
>
> Taxiing on soft fields is also significantly different. You hold the yoke
> back full aft and taxi with more power to ease the pressure of the nose
> wheel.
>
> Allen

This all sounds like "landing normally" to me!

As with everything else connected with flying, "landing on grass" is best
not considered in one all encompassing definition for do's and don't's.
One of the worst habits a pilot can get into from the first day of training
is to begin thinking this way.
Landing on grass has all the variables associated with it that will be found
for any single location and set of conditions.
The best way to think about issues like this is to completely forsake the
"axiom" route and instead think in terms of SPECIFIC existing conditions for
the intended landing.
Dudley Henriques



"drclive" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
> differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
> advices? Thanks
>

A,

> You want to land as softly and as slowly as possible on a grass strip.
>
> Also want to keep the nosewheel off terra firma as long as possible so it
> doesn't run the risk of "digging in" from the weight of the engine and prop
> when the nose wheel does touch down.
>
> After touchtown, the yoke should be full aft.
>
> Taxiing on soft fields is also significantly different. You hold the yoke
> back full aft and taxi with more power to ease the pressure of the nose
> wheel.
>

Which part of that would not be beneficial on asphalt?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Drclive,

as others have said, it totally depends both on what the state of the
strip and the state of the grass is. Generally, use softfield
techniques (a good idea on any surface) as taught in primary training.
Very important: Add the additionals to distance calculations as given
in the POH.

Wet, high grass is more of a problem - I've had a Tobago decelerate
again during the take-off roll at 40 knots when I entered a patch of
higher gras (maybe 2 inches) after recent rain. I saw a sunburnt and
thus much short patch coming up ahead, so I didn't abort - and it
worked.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 17 Jun 2006 09:08:36 -0700, "drclive" > wrote:

>Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
>differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
>advices? Thanks

As has already been said, rent a CFI is a good place to start, but as
was also said, landing on a well cared for sod strip is little
different than landing at a regular airport.

However you do need to know the condition of the strip such as: Is it
smooth, It the grass cut short, and of course how long is the runway.
IE this is a good time to call ahead and find out the condition of the
strip before you discover it has ruts left from a truck after the last
rain.

If I were going into a sod strip for the first time it'd be a soft
field landing with the nose gear well in the air. If it's not rough
I'd not worry about the nose gear coming down. If it is rough I'd try
to taxi with enough power to keep the nose gear up. I say this with
the assumption you are flying either a Cessna, or Piper. OTOH a taxi
with enough power to keep the nose up requires a field with out loose
*stuff* on the runway or taxi way. Otherwise you can "whack" something
your prefer remained un whacked.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:31:30 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:

>> Taxiing on soft fields is also significantly different. You hold the yoke
>> back full aft and taxi with more power to ease the pressure of the nose
>> wheel.
>>
>
> Which part of that would not be beneficial on asphalt?

Yoke FULL aft AND more power to keep nose wheel off the runway.

Allen

Doug wrote:

> Depends on the grass. Grass strips vary from putting green smooth to
> plane riping holes, rocks and logs. Examine grass beforehand.
>

Funny, I've never seen a grass landing strip that had rocks and logs.
If you are landing off-airport that is certainly a possibly, but the
subject clearly says airstrip, just random field out in the middle of
nowhere.


Matt

A Lieberman wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:14:25 +0100, Quilljar wrote:
>
>
>>No difference, just land normally...
>
>
> Incorrect advice.....
>
> You want to land as softly and as slowly as possible on a grass strip.

Baloney. He didn't ask about landing on a soft field, he said a grass
airstrip. Grass doesn't imply a soft field at all.


> Also want to keep the nosewheel off terra firma as long as possible so it
> doesn't run the risk of "digging in" from the weight of the engine and prop
> when the nose wheel does touch down.

Again, only if this is a soft field. Grass strip isn't synonymous with
soft field. If you don't know the difference, I suggest some remedial
instruction.


> After touchtown, the yoke should be full aft.

This is true for all landings :-)


> Taxiing on soft fields is also significantly different. You hold the yoke
> back full aft and taxi with more power to ease the pressure of the nose
> wheel.

Right, but he didn't ask about a soft field.


Matt

wrote:

>>>drclive wrote:
>>>
>>>>Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
>>>>differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
>>>>advices? Thanks
>
>
> Ben Hallert wrote:
>
>>>Rent a CFI?
>
>
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>A CFI to land on a grass strip? If he needs that then he
>>better get his money back from his original CFI.
>
>
> Why is it so out of the question for him to get a CFI to go with him if
> he's never landed on grass before? Maybe it's common where you are, but
> in many places, you're not allowed to practice landing on anything but a
> paved runway with rental aircraft while training for your private pilot
> license. Most schools/clubs prohibit landing rental aircraft on
> unimproved (grass, dirt, etc.) strips, regardless of your ratings. We
> all should know how to do a soft-field landing, but if you've never done
> it and would feel more comfortable (and are willing to pay for) bringing
> a CFI with you, why should that be a problem or a reflection on anyone's
> "original CFI"?

You are the second person who can't distinguish between a grass strip
and a soft field. I guess you both need some remedial instruction. Any
competent private pilot or soloed student even should have no problem
landing on a grass strip. If they do, their instructor should have his
or her license revoked.


Matt

drclive wrote:
> Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
> differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
> advices? Thanks
>
Actually, I find my landings are better on grass that hard surface. I
feel real good then go to my homme airport with asphalt and do terrible.
A friend of mine has a 3000' E/W grass strip right up on a lake. Fun to
fly in and out of. However, you have to watch landing in the evening to
the west. The sun will blind you. Because of the upslope, protocol is to
land up hill to the west and take off downhill to the east and over the
lake, unless the wind is such that that you should use the appropriate
runway. 90% ofthe time the wind is out for the south.

--
Regards,

Ross
C-172F 180 hp
KSWI

Ross wrote:

> drclive wrote:
>
>> Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
>> differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
>> advices? Thanks
>>
> Actually, I find my landings are better on grass that hard surface. I
> feel real good then go to my homme airport with asphalt and do terrible.
> A friend of mine has a 3000' E/W grass strip right up on a lake. Fun to
> fly in and out of. However, you have to watch landing in the evening to
> the west. The sun will blind you. Because of the upslope, protocol is to
> land up hill to the west and take off downhill to the east and over the
> lake, unless the wind is such that that you should use the appropriate
> runway. 90% ofthe time the wind is out for the south.
>

I agree. I love landing on grass. In the C150 I learned in, I could
hear and feel the blades hitting the tires and knew just when touchdown
was going to occur. It made for consistly smoother touchdowns. Also,
grass is much easier on the tires and brakes.


Matt

A Lieberman wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:34:42 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>drclive wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
>>>differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
>>>advices? Thanks
>>
>>What sort of differences? Landing on grass isn't much different than
>>hard surface unless the grass is very tall, very wet, or hiding mud. :-)
>
>
> I'd have to disagree with you on this.
>
> It also depends on the soil composition. If it's clay and dry and hard as
> concrete, yes, no difference other then the grass that you describe above.
>
> If it any other type of soil composition where the weight of the plane may
> sink a little, then soft field take off and landing techniques are in order
> (yoke full aft when on ground and prop is turning).
>
> See my other postings on the technique.
>
> Allen
See earlier message of mine on landing on grass, but one should always
know the soil of the intended grass runway and taxi with the yoke full
back. The 3000' field I mentioned is in perfect condition. But I have
been on some that are very rough. This field will drain quite nicely,
but there are soft spots that you need to know about. We had to push a
Warrior out of the soft spot one time. He was trying to taxi out with
full power and four adults in the plane. We got him to get the other
three out and with a little engine and pushing in the right spots he got
out.

--
Regards,

Ross
C-172F 180 hp
KSWI

In article >,
A Lieberman > wrote:


> How does one do this from pattern altitude at an airport they have never
> been to?


With a low, slow pass a little to one side so you can see the landing
area. Quite a common practice for those who land on other than prepared
surfaces.

> You are the second person who can't distinguish between a grass strip and a soft field.

Yanno, a grass strip should be treated as a soft field unless you know
otherwise. An unfamiliar grass strip can hide problems that an
unfamiliar asphalt strip would not.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ross wrote:

> A Lieberman wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:34:42 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>> drclive wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
>>>> differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
>>>> advices? Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> What sort of differences? Landing on grass isn't much different than
>>> hard surface unless the grass is very tall, very wet, or hiding mud.
>>> :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd have to disagree with you on this.
>> It also depends on the soil composition. If it's clay and dry and
>> hard as
>> concrete, yes, no difference other then the grass that you describe
>> above.
>>
>> If it any other type of soil composition where the weight of the plane
>> may
>> sink a little, then soft field take off and landing techniques are in
>> order
>> (yoke full aft when on ground and prop is turning).
>> See my other postings on the technique.
>>
>> Allen
>
> See earlier message of mine on landing on grass, but one should always
> know the soil of the intended grass runway and taxi with the yoke full
> back.

Even when taxiing back after landing into a 30K headwind?

Matt

Jose wrote:

>> You are the second person who can't distinguish between a grass strip
>> and a soft field.
>
>
> Yanno, a grass strip should be treated as a soft field unless you know
> otherwise. An unfamiliar grass strip can hide problems that an
> unfamiliar asphalt strip would not.

You should familiarize yourself with any runway before landing on it.
And asphalt can hide problems that grass doesn't (black ice for one).

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
snip
>
> I agree. I love landing on grass. In the C150 I learned in, I could
> hear and feel the blades hitting the tires and knew just when touchdown
> was going to occur. It made for consistly smoother touchdowns. Also,
> grass is much easier on the tires and brakes.

It would appear that some read into the original enquiry things that he
didn't ask.
Practice grass landings on your home airfield.
Then find a Gliding Club strip. Good surfaces and friendly people.
Of course if you -really- want to fly off topdressing airstrips I
suggest getting a C180 and a friendly topdressing pilot based in a
hilly location :-)

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> You are the second person who can't distinguish between a grass strip
> and a soft field. I guess you both need some remedial instruction. Any
> competent private pilot or soloed student even should have no problem
> landing on a grass strip. If they do, their instructor should have his
> or her license revoked.

The point of my post was that the attitude that if someone wants or
needs to take a CFI with them to practice something they were taught but
never actually *did*, like landing on anything other than a paved
surface, even AFTER they have their license, who are you to pass
judgment on them or on their "original" CFI?

The attitude that "remedial instruction" after one is a licensed private
pilot is something to be ashamed of, or a negative reflection on one's
"original" CFI, has no place here, IMO. Must be nice to be so perfect
that you never need, want or ask for the input of a CFI once you have a
license. If you open any of your private pilot reference books or the
FAR/AIM to review something you learned during private pilot
instruction, is that a negative reflection on your "original" CFI, too?
How do you know how long this person got their license, how often they
fly, or what the terrain is like where they are?

And while on the subject of assumptions, I know grass strips are not
*always* soft fields -- my mistake for not being more specific; your
mistake for assuming that all of them ARE. Where I'm from, if you can
get grass to grow on it, it's soft enough for a soft-field landing;
grass doesn't generally grow on anything harder here ... at least, not
the kind of lush green grass you can see from pattern altitude or above.
*Most* dirt strips around here are soft also. Nevertheless, I don't know
of any school or club that allows one to land a rental aircraft on an
unimproved strip, with or without a CFI.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:25:46 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

>> See earlier message of mine on landing on grass, but one should always
>> know the soil of the intended grass runway and taxi with the yoke full
>> back.
>
> Even when taxiing back after landing into a 30K headwind?

30 knot head wind doesn't reduce the weight on the nose wheel on taxiing,
so yes, you still need yoke full aft, just less power,

Allen

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:10:28 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

> A Lieberman wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:14:25 +0100, Quilljar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No difference, just land normally...
>>
>>
>> Incorrect advice.....
>>
>> You want to land as softly and as slowly as possible on a grass strip.
>
> Baloney. He didn't ask about landing on a soft field, he said a grass
> airstrip. Grass doesn't imply a soft field at all.

You are still wrong. Unless the sub surface of the grass is a hard as
concrete, grass adds drag on ground ops. Add some weight, and you have
even more drag since now the wheels are not exactly on top of your surface.
Grass strips are not hard top runways.

Since I couldn't find a "legal definition" of soft field, I will put the
ball in your court to prove me wrong that grass strips are not soft fields.

> Again, only if this is a soft field. Grass strip isn't synonymous with
> soft field. If you don't know the difference, I suggest some remedial
> instruction.

Sounds like maybe you need to check into remedial training. I'd say my
method of assuming all grass fields are soft fields will save my hardware
quicker then your assumptions. Grass strips don't have asphalt or concrete
which equals soft field. I'd sure like to see you prove me wrong, as I am
always learning....

>> Taxiing on soft fields is also significantly different. You hold the yoke
>> back full aft and taxi with more power to ease the pressure of the nose
>> wheel.
>
> Right, but he didn't ask about a soft field.

See above, grass strips are not concrete runways, the sub surface the grass
is growing on adds drag to ground ops which is a distinctly different
technique then hard top runways / taxiways.

Not only that, more irregularities in the surface and taxiing or landing at
an excessive speed WITHOUT using soft field techniques will just invite you
to a potential prop strike if your nose wheel just happens to dig in.

Allen

I fly at about 20 feet, just to the side of the runway and
look it over. I do the same with water landings, looking
for rocks, logs and even alligators.

I had an Air Force tanker pilot come to me for a CFI rating.
He had never been on grass and in fact couldn't find an
airport that did not have radar vectors and navaids on the
field. We did a lot of grass strips and pilotage to get him
up to speed. He did the SEL add-on in a few days and took
his CFI check with the feds the next day. A very good pilot
and fast learner, but the USAF doesn't teach T-38/KC 135
pilots to find grass strips in the middle of a world of
grass. The US Army and USMC do a better job at that task.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
| On 17 Jun 2006 11:43:34 -0700, Doug wrote:
|
| > Depends on the grass. Grass strips vary from putting
green smooth to
| > plane riping holes, rocks and logs. Examine grass
beforehand.
|
| *smile*
|
| How does one do this from pattern altitude at an airport
they have never
| been to?
|
| Allen

Vandals tip headstones over in cemeteries and sometimes
visit grass strips for similar reasons. If the airport
isn't attended, a low and slow look-see is a good idea. If
attended, a telephone call can alert you to any new issues,
such as a prairie dog colony.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Doug wrote:
|
| > Depends on the grass. Grass strips vary from putting
green smooth to
| > plane riping holes, rocks and logs. Examine grass
beforehand.
| >
|
| Funny, I've never seen a grass landing strip that had
rocks and logs.
| If you are landing off-airport that is certainly a
possibly, but the
| subject clearly says airstrip, just random field out in
the middle of
| nowhere.
|
|
| Matt

In article >,
A Lieberman > wrote:

> > No difference, just land normally...

> Incorrect advice.....
> You want to land as softly and as slowly as possible on a grass strip.
> Also want to keep the nosewheel off terra firma as long as possible so it
> doesn't run the risk of "digging in" from the weight of the engine and prop
> when the nose wheel does touch down.
> After touchtown, the yoke should be full aft.

You mean you don't do a normal landing this way?

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:33:32 GMT, john smith wrote:

> In article >,
> A Lieberman > wrote:
>
>>> No difference, just land normally...
>
>> Incorrect advice.....
>> You want to land as softly and as slowly as possible on a grass strip.
>> Also want to keep the nosewheel off terra firma as long as possible so it
>> doesn't run the risk of "digging in" from the weight of the engine and prop
>> when the nose wheel does touch down.
>> After touchtown, the yoke should be full aft.
>
> You mean you don't do a normal landing this way?

***I don't need the yoke in full aft position AFTER touchdown on paved
runways.***

You don't want to use brakes at all for grass strips on landing or you will
invite the chances of the nose wheel digging in.

Keeping the yoke full aft after landing to shut down will reduce the
pressure on the nose wheel and shift the weight back on your mains where it
needs to be.

Allen

They are out there. I have seen some pretty funky conditions on "grass"
strips. Mud, and obstacles. But like I said, it all depends. If it's
smooth grass, just land line on asphalt. If it is bumpy, land as slow
as possible. If it is muddy come in with power and do your best soft
field technique. My home base grass strip has "moguls".

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Funny, I've never seen a grass landing strip that had rocks and logs.
> If you are landing off-airport that is certainly a possibly, but the
> subject clearly says airstrip, just random field out in the middle of
> nowhere.
>
>
> Matt

I learned in a J-3 on a grass strip. I got a single sentence instruction for
my first hard surface landing. That was to be sure to track the runway in a
crosswind. You can be a little sloppy on grass, but not on asphalt,
especially in a taildragger.

Never gave it any thought before, but taildragger pilots are always going to
touch down nose high and slowed to near stall in any craft, on grass or
asphalt. If there are any taildragger pilots around now days, watch 'em
landing tri-'s sometime.

Sounds like some of you guys are talking about landing in a cow pasture.
Most dirt fields I've flown into had a distinct path marking the strip used
as the runway. No way would I ever intentionally, i. e. on purpose, set one
down in a uniform field of grass about which I was unfamiliar.

There is distinct advantages in becoming proficient in a taildragger and one
that is not spin-proof. I guess all of this dates me.

"drclive" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
> differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
> advices? Thanks

One difference which almost bit me in the derrierre' when I was a new pilot
is that a grass strip doesn't have a nice painted centerline or even runway
edges to give you an indication that you're pointed in more or less the
right direction. I had an experience where I drifted well off-line on
takeoff from a grass strip and was more or less oblivious to the problem
until I nearly collected the tree which defined the narrow point of the
strip.

Since then, I've done a much better job of lining up on grass fields and
picking an object at the end of the field to use as an aim point.

KB

wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>You are the second person who can't distinguish between a grass strip
>>and a soft field. I guess you both need some remedial instruction. Any
>>competent private pilot or soloed student even should have no problem
>>landing on a grass strip. If they do, their instructor should have his
>>or her license revoked.
>
>
> The point of my post was that the attitude that if someone wants or
> needs to take a CFI with them to practice something they were taught but
> never actually *did*, like landing on anything other than a paved
> surface, even AFTER they have their license, who are you to pass
> judgment on them or on their "original" CFI?

You guys make landing on a grass strip sound like rocket science. This
just isn't a big deal and any competent private pilot should have no
trouble doing this. If you need remedial training for something you
should have learned in the first place, then I stand by my statement
that you initial instruction was deficient. I've encountered all sorts
of new things since getting my private and then later my instrument
rating. If I had to take an instructor along every time I faced a new
weather condition or flew into an unfamiliar airport, I'd need a CFI for
every trip. A competent pilot should have the skill to gradually expand
their skill and experience on their own. Landing on grass just isn't
something that should require a CFI.


> The attitude that "remedial instruction" after one is a licensed private
> pilot is something to be ashamed of, or a negative reflection on one's
> "original" CFI, has no place here, IMO. Must be nice to be so perfect
> that you never need, want or ask for the input of a CFI once you have a
> license. If you open any of your private pilot reference books or the
> FAR/AIM to review something you learned during private pilot
> instruction, is that a negative reflection on your "original" CFI, too?
> How do you know how long this person got their license, how often they
> fly, or what the terrain is like where they are?

I certainly enlist a CFI for significant new things, like checking out
in an unfamiliar airplane, but I don't get a CFI for every little new
thing I explore and I consider landing on a grass airstrip rather than
pavement to be an extremely minor activity. I landing in snow the first
time without an instructor aboard. Landed on ice that way. Landed at
Logan, BWI, Philly and Washington National the first time all alone as well.


> And while on the subject of assumptions, I know grass strips are not
> *always* soft fields -- my mistake for not being more specific; your
> mistake for assuming that all of them ARE. Where I'm from, if you can
> get grass to grow on it, it's soft enough for a soft-field landing;
> grass doesn't generally grow on anything harder here ... at least, not
> the kind of lush green grass you can see from pattern altitude or above.
> *Most* dirt strips around here are soft also. Nevertheless, I don't know
> of any school or club that allows one to land a rental aircraft on an
> unimproved strip, with or without a CFI.

You should know the area to which you are flying and the runway
conditions prior to take-off. That is part of preflight planning. I
think the OP's question was pretty simple, yet folks gave a lot of worst
case scenario responses. He didn't ask how to land on a grass airstrip
that is saturated with water and is located on a peat bog. :-)


Matt

A Lieberman wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:25:46 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>>See earlier message of mine on landing on grass, but one should always
>>>know the soil of the intended grass runway and taxi with the yoke full
>>>back.
>>
>>Even when taxiing back after landing into a 30K headwind?
>
>
> 30 knot head wind doesn't reduce the weight on the nose wheel on taxiing,
> so yes, you still need yoke full aft, just less power,

But when you are taxiing back after landing that 30 knot headwind is now
a 30 knot tailwind. Holding full up elevator with that strong a
tailwind will put a lot more weight on the nosewheel and may even flip
the airplane on its nose. You did learn proper control positioning for
taxiing in strong windds during your primary instruction didn't you?


Matt

Pastures are nice, but fresh cow patties must be washed off
before they dry too much.

Everybody should fly a taildragger some, perhaps the new
Sport Pilot Cub re-creations will help with that.

Tundra tires make landing safer, but slow cruise.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"birdog" > wrote in message
...
|I learned in a J-3 on a grass strip. I got a single
sentence instruction for
| my first hard surface landing. That was to be sure to
track the runway in a
| crosswind. You can be a little sloppy on grass, but not on
asphalt,
| especially in a taildragger.
|
| Never gave it any thought before, but taildragger pilots
are always going to
| touch down nose high and slowed to near stall in any
craft, on grass or
| asphalt. If there are any taildragger pilots around now
days, watch 'em
| landing tri-'s sometime.
|
| Sounds like some of you guys are talking about landing in
a cow pasture.
| Most dirt fields I've flown into had a distinct path
marking the strip used
| as the runway. No way would I ever intentionally, i. e. on
purpose, set one
| down in a uniform field of grass about which I was
unfamiliar.
|
| There is distinct advantages in becoming proficient in a
taildragger and one
| that is not spin-proof. I guess all of this dates me.
|
|

If you have a big field of grass, you can always land into
the wind. The British used such fields for the narrow gear
on the Spitfire. It is also harder to bomb the runway when
it is 2,000 foot by 2,000 or bigger.


"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
|
| "drclive" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| > Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article
that describes the
| > differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first
time, tips and
| > advices? Thanks
|
| One difference which almost bit me in the derrierre' when
I was a new pilot
| is that a grass strip doesn't have a nice painted
centerline or even runway
| edges to give you an indication that you're pointed in
more or less the
| right direction. I had an experience where I drifted well
off-line on
| takeoff from a grass strip and was more or less oblivious
to the problem
| until I nearly collected the tree which defined the narrow
point of the
| strip.
|
| Since then, I've done a much better job of lining up on
grass fields and
| picking an object at the end of the field to use as an aim
point.
|
| KB
|
|

Jim Macklin wrote:

> I fly at about 20 feet, just to the side of the runway and
> look it over. I do the same with water landings, looking
> for rocks, logs and even alligators.
>
> I had an Air Force tanker pilot come to me for a CFI rating.
> He had never been on grass and in fact couldn't find an
> airport that did not have radar vectors and navaids on the
> field. We did a lot of grass strips and pilotage to get him
> up to speed. He did the SEL add-on in a few days and took
> his CFI check with the feds the next day. A very good pilot
> and fast learner, but the USAF doesn't teach T-38/KC 135
> pilots to find grass strips in the middle of a world of
> grass. The US Army and USMC do a better job at that task.

No wonder the rescue operation in Iran was botched so many years ago.
This is truly scary that a military pilot has no training in landing in
unimproved areas. Wow.

Matt

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Vandals tip headstones over in cemeteries and sometimes
> visit grass strips for similar reasons. If the airport
> isn't attended, a low and slow look-see is a good idea. If
> attended, a telephone call can alert you to any new issues,
> such as a prairie dog colony.

I've never seen a headstone on a grass airstrip. :-) I'll take your
word for it, however.

Matt

john smith wrote:

> In article >,
> A Lieberman > wrote:
>
>
>>>No difference, just land normally...
>
>
>>Incorrect advice.....
>>You want to land as softly and as slowly as possible on a grass strip.
>>Also want to keep the nosewheel off terra firma as long as possible so it
>>doesn't run the risk of "digging in" from the weight of the engine and prop
>>when the nose wheel does touch down.
>>After touchtown, the yoke should be full aft.
>
>
> You mean you don't do a normal landing this way?

It seems a lot of pilots these days aren't taught this way. It
certainly is the way I was taught. The only real difference between my
soft-field technique and a normal landing is the addition of power after
touchdown in order to hold the nosewheel off and to facilitate taxi. My
approach and landing technique is the same no matter what the runway.

Matt

A Lieberman wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:33:32 GMT, john smith wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>> A Lieberman > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>No difference, just land normally...
>>
>>>Incorrect advice.....
>>>You want to land as softly and as slowly as possible on a grass strip.
>>>Also want to keep the nosewheel off terra firma as long as possible so it
>>>doesn't run the risk of "digging in" from the weight of the engine and prop
>>>when the nose wheel does touch down.
>>>After touchtown, the yoke should be full aft.
>>
>>You mean you don't do a normal landing this way?
>
>
> ***I don't need the yoke in full aft position AFTER touchdown on paved
> runways.***
>
> You don't want to use brakes at all for grass strips on landing or you will
> invite the chances of the nose wheel digging in.

This is funny. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you have little
experience on grass runways, especially short ones.

Matt

birdog wrote:

> I learned in a J-3 on a grass strip. I got a single sentence instruction for
> my first hard surface landing. That was to be sure to track the runway in a
> crosswind. You can be a little sloppy on grass, but not on asphalt,
> especially in a taildragger.
>
> Never gave it any thought before, but taildragger pilots are always going to
> touch down nose high and slowed to near stall in any craft, on grass or
> asphalt. If there are any taildragger pilots around now days, watch 'em
> landing tri-'s sometime.
>
> Sounds like some of you guys are talking about landing in a cow pasture.
> Most dirt fields I've flown into had a distinct path marking the strip used
> as the runway. No way would I ever intentionally, i. e. on purpose, set one
> down in a uniform field of grass about which I was unfamiliar.
>
> There is distinct advantages in becoming proficient in a taildragger and one
> that is not spin-proof. I guess all of this dates me.

It dates you, but it also suggests that you had good primary
instruction. I didn't learn in a tail dragger, but I learned from an
old instructor who has about 50,000 hours, a good share of that
instructing. It appears the more that I read here that newer
instructors aren't teaching folks how to really fly under a wide range
of conditions. The thought of needing a CFI to go from asphalt to grass
just strikes me as so hilarious.

Matt

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> No wonder the rescue operation in Iran was botched so many years ago.
> This is truly scary that a military pilot has no training in landing in
> unimproved areas. Wow.

You need to consider the difference between Army, USAF, Marine,
and Navy pilots and the types of flying they do. A T-38/KC-135
pilot training to land in unimproved areas would be wasting
training time.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>No wonder the rescue operation in Iran was botched so many years ago.
>>This is truly scary that a military pilot has no training in landing in
>>unimproved areas. Wow.
>
>
> You need to consider the difference between Army, USAF, Marine,
> and Navy pilots and the types of flying they do. A T-38/KC-135
> pilot training to land in unimproved areas would be wasting
> training time.

Yes, I see your point. Hopefully, those flying cargo airplanes get such
training. :-)


Matt

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 01:44:24 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

> I've encountered all sorts
> of new things since getting my private and then later my instrument
> rating. If I had to take an instructor along every time I faced a new
> weather condition or flew into an unfamiliar airport, I'd need a CFI for
> every trip. A competent pilot should have the skill to gradually expand
> their skill and experience on their own. Landing on grass just isn't
> something that should require a CFI.

I'd respectfully disagree with you here Matt.

The original poster asked for links leading him to tips and tricks of
landing on grass strips, so there must be some validity in everybody else
giving him sound advice to use soft field take off and landing procedures.
I wouldn't call these tips worse case scenarios, but good sound advice.

Would you want to put your plane in the hands of an *INEXPERIENCED* grass
strip pilot without some CFI guidance? I certainly wouldn't.

> I certainly enlist a CFI for significant new things, like checking out
> in an unfamiliar airplane,

The way you talk, why? Whether you fly a Piper, Cessna or any other single
non complex tricycle plane, you fly the plane the same way? Read the POH,
stick to the speeds and land the thing.

Oh, now maybe you are seeing the light, that each model plane maybe has a
different technique on flying / landing? Doesn't this apply to paved vs
grass strips? Different techniques on landing and ground operations for
grass vs paved?

> but I don't get a CFI for every little new
> thing I explore and I consider landing on a grass airstrip rather than
> pavement to be an extremely minor activity. I landing in snow the first
> time without an instructor aboard. Landed on ice that way. Landed at
> Logan, BWI, Philly and Washington National the first time all alone as well.

Whether you land at BWI, or some simple paved uncontrolled airport, the
technique of landing and taxiing is the same. Your example is comparing
apples to oranges. We are talking about techniques on handling an
airplane, not airport operations. If he had asked for something basic like
tower operations, I would have pointed him to rec.aviation.student.

Let me guess, you would calvier to fly in the Rocky mountains without
mountain flying lessons just to expand on your experience???

> You should know the area to which you are flying and the runway
> conditions prior to take-off. That is part of preflight planning. I
> think the OP's question was pretty simple, yet folks gave a lot of worst
> case scenario responses. He didn't ask how to land on a grass airstrip
> that is saturated with water and is located on a peat bog. :-)

My impressions, and hopefully the original poster will chime in, is that he
is going to a grass strip leaving from a paved airport. This may be a first
time landing, and he wanted more information.

Telling the original poster that it's normal operations on a grass strip
(which is soft field technique until you provide references otherwise) is
not sound advice.

Perusing the web, you may want to check out
http://www.whittsflying.com/page4.12Types%20of%20Landings.htm for some
refresher training.

Some excerpts from the above site...

The soft-field landing technique is a rather extreme extension of what it
takes to make a good normal landing. In both, you would fly the approach so
that, on final; you have a constant airspeed and full flaps. Low-wing
aircraft flaps can be damaged on rough fields so it is advised to raise
them as soon as possible. With those constants of airspeed and flaps
settings, set power becomes your variable to adjust the glidepath in a soft
field landing. See Practical Test Standards for test specifics.

And then the very next paragraph....

Short, Soft, and Rough landings
It is very unlikely that during your training you have been prepared for
short, soft or rough runways. Any field not paved should be considered both
soft and rough. You cannot evaluate an unpaved airport from the air.
Walking or driving the strip may not suffice either. Paved runways tend to
long enough, firm enough and smooth enough; an unpaved runway is likely to
be short, soft and rough. On the unpaved surface every landing should be
made softly with the nose high and some power. The approach should be
steep, at minimum float airspeed and for a full stall landing. You should
practice the control of the slower airspeed and steeper approach path of
the short field for this landing on a paved runway before you are going to
need it for real. Get the power off and the flaps up immediately on ground
contact. Don't lock the wheels by too much braking. Keeping the nose wheel
off the ground is more important than braking if the ground is soft. Add
20% to the performance figures from the POH to allow for your less than
perfect speed control and brake application.

http://www.whittsflying.com/ is a must read for all pilots *smile*.

Allen

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Bob Noel wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>No wonder the rescue operation in Iran was botched so many years ago.
> >>This is truly scary that a military pilot has no training in landing in
> >>unimproved areas. Wow.
> >
> >
> > You need to consider the difference between Army, USAF, Marine,
> > and Navy pilots and the types of flying they do. A T-38/KC-135
> > pilot training to land in unimproved areas would be wasting
> > training time.
>
> Yes, I see your point. Hopefully, those flying cargo airplanes get such
> training. :-)

Desert One was a C-130 and HH-53 operation.
Herc drivers know unimproved strips.
HH-53 operators know LZ's and PZ's.

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> You guys make landing on a grass strip sound like rocket science.

No one said it was rocket science. This pilot wasn't clear on something
and did the right thing before attempting it -- ASK! Regardless of the
reason (an "original" CFI that didn't spend enough time on it, an
examiner that did not cover it, a lot of time passing between having
learned it but never actually *done* it, he/she should not be made to
feel ashamed or belittled for ASKING for help/advice ... which is
exactly the attitude you took.

> If you need remedial training for something you
> should have learned in the first place, then I stand
> by my statement that you initial instruction was deficient.

I disagree. There are many things you are taught that, once you pass
your checkride, you may not use again for months or years, depending on
the type of flying you do, where you do it, and what you fly.

> A competent pilot should have the skill to gradually expand
> their skill and experience on their own. Landing on grass just isn't
> something that should require a CFI.

Maybe this pilot *has* gradually expanded their skill on their own.
Someone merely suggested that if they weren't clear on something, even
something that YOU feel shouldn't require one, take a CFI along. Nothing
wrong with that advice.

And by the way, if every pilot stayed as skilled and competent in
subsequent years as they are on the day of their checkride, there would
be no need for BFRs ... yet it is a requirement that a person's
knowledge and skill are reviewed and honed periodically. If something
isn't exactly up to par during a BFR, does that reflect poorly on the
"original" CFI? I don't think that's a fair assumption.

> I certainly enlist a CFI for significant new things, like checking out
> in an unfamiliar airplane, but I don't get a CFI for every little new
> thing I explore and I consider landing on a grass airstrip rather than
> pavement to be an extremely minor activity.

Good for you!
But that's YOU. People don't all expand their skills or stay competent
exactly the same way that YOU do.

If a pilot's knowledge/memory about how to do something has faded,
that's not necessarily the "original" CFI's fault, and there's
absolutely no reason why that pilot should feel incompetent if they ask
for "remedial instruction" on something they already learned. They *may*
be better off hiring a CFI than weeding through various and differing
opinions from "competent and skilled" pilots on a newsgroup.

> You should know the area to which you are flying and the runway
> conditions prior to take-off. That is part of preflight planning.

No argument there.

> I think the OP's question was pretty simple, yet folks gave
> a lot of worst case scenario responses.

And YOU gave one that may or may NOT have been the correct one for the
grass strip he is going to land on, *assuming* that it is a hard surface
beneath the grass. A perfect illustration of why a CFI could better
answer the question and/or provide in-flight "remedial" instruction for
the specific strip this person plans to land on.

Having worked at a flight school, licensed pilots came in for refreshers
on various things from time to time. IMO, that doesn't mean they *or*
their "original" CFI are unskilled or incompetent. Kudos to them for not
feeling too ashamed to ask for a refresher, and thank God no one
responds to their request by saying, "Didn't you learn that in your
private pilot instruction? You shouldn't NEED more training in something
as simple as THAT!"

A Lieberman wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 01:44:24 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>I've encountered all sorts
>>of new things since getting my private and then later my instrument
>>rating. If I had to take an instructor along every time I faced a new
>>weather condition or flew into an unfamiliar airport, I'd need a CFI for
>>every trip. A competent pilot should have the skill to gradually expand
>>their skill and experience on their own. Landing on grass just isn't
>>something that should require a CFI.
>
>
> I'd respectfully disagree with you here Matt.
>
> The original poster asked for links leading him to tips and tricks of
> landing on grass strips, so there must be some validity in everybody else
> giving him sound advice to use soft field take off and landing procedures.
> I wouldn't call these tips worse case scenarios, but good sound advice.

Well, some folks will bring their lawyer to buy a car also. I guess
whatever makes you comfortable.


> Would you want to put your plane in the hands of an *INEXPERIENCED* grass
> strip pilot without some CFI guidance? I certainly wouldn't.

Absolutely, as long as I knew that the pilot had received sound primary
instruction. I must admit that I wouldn't put it in the hands of many
who have posted here recently. I mean not being able to take off in a
straight line in the proper direction without a white line on the
ground. Sheesh, that is scary and indicative of severly deficient
primary flight training.


>>I certainly enlist a CFI for significant new things, like checking out
>>in an unfamiliar airplane,
>
>
> The way you talk, why? Whether you fly a Piper, Cessna or any other single
> non complex tricycle plane, you fly the plane the same way? Read the POH,
> stick to the speeds and land the thing.

Actually, I probably would do that if the insurance regulations allowed.
:-) When I checked out in my 182 after buying into the partnership, I
flew the first pattern completely without assistance from the CFI (who
was also the son of my partner). It simply wasn't a big deal, but the
FAA requires a check-out in an HP airplane so I complied with the regs.


> Oh, now maybe you are seeing the light, that each model plane maybe has a
> different technique on flying / landing? Doesn't this apply to paved vs
> grass strips? Different techniques on landing and ground operations for
> grass vs paved?

No, because the techniques aren't different for a grass strip. That is
my point. They are different for a soft field, but being grass doesn't
a prior mean it is a soft field.


>>but I don't get a CFI for every little new
>>thing I explore and I consider landing on a grass airstrip rather than
>>pavement to be an extremely minor activity. I landing in snow the first
>>time without an instructor aboard. Landed on ice that way. Landed at
>>Logan, BWI, Philly and Washington National the first time all alone as well.
>
>
> Whether you land at BWI, or some simple paved uncontrolled airport, the
> technique of landing and taxiing is the same. Your example is comparing
> apples to oranges. We are talking about techniques on handling an
> airplane, not airport operations. If he had asked for something basic like
> tower operations, I would have pointed him to rec.aviation.student.

Not at all. Navigating the taxiways at Washington National at night was
a far cry from anything I'd done before and a far greater delta than
going from asphalt to grass. I had to land at night as I couldn't get
an IFR reservation during the day.


> Let me guess, you would calvier to fly in the Rocky mountains without
> mountain flying lessons just to expand on your experience???

Cavalierly, no. Fly in the Rockies to gain experience, sure. Again,
apples to oranges.


Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> I don't assume. I find out before I take-off.

On the contrary, you obviously *do* assume! You assume that your flight
is going to go precisely as planned. You assume that you will be landing
at your planned destination, and you likely *will*. But there's always
the chance that you could have a mechanical problem and have to put your
airplane down somewhere other than where you planned ... like on a grass
area that you didn't "find out" about before take-off. According to your
prior posts, it's wrong to consider that a grass area might be soft
underneath. Those are some rather significant assumptions for a person
who doesn't assume.

wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>You guys make landing on a grass strip sound like rocket science.
>
>
> No one said it was rocket science. This pilot wasn't clear on something
> and did the right thing before attempting it -- ASK! Regardless of the
> reason (an "original" CFI that didn't spend enough time on it, an
> examiner that did not cover it, a lot of time passing between having
> learned it but never actually *done* it, he/she should not be made to
> feel ashamed or belittled for ASKING for help/advice ... which is
> exactly the attitude you took.

No, that isn't the attitude I took at all. I think it was great he
asked for advice. It was some of the advice that I took exception with,
not the asking for it. Read it again, Sam...


> And YOU gave one that may or may NOT have been the correct one for the
> grass strip he is going to land on, *assuming* that it is a hard surface
> beneath the grass. A perfect illustration of why a CFI could better
> answer the question and/or provide in-flight "remedial" instruction for
> the specific strip this person plans to land on.

No, I gave him what he asked for. Grass strips in general aren't soft
fields. He asked about landing on a grass airstrip. He didn't ask
about landing on a soft field, or a peat bog, or a rutted cow pasture or
a logging clear-cut on top of a mountain. I gave him a very correct
answer for the question he asked. Others seemed to want to give him
answers for a lot of questions he didn't ask.


Matt

wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>I don't assume. I find out before I take-off.
>
>
> On the contrary, you obviously *do* assume! You assume that your flight
> is going to go precisely as planned. You assume that you will be landing
> at your planned destination, and you likely *will*. But there's always
> the chance that you could have a mechanical problem and have to put your
> airplane down somewhere other than where you planned ... like on a grass
> area that you didn't "find out" about before take-off. According to your
> prior posts, it's wrong to consider that a grass area might be soft
> underneath. Those are some rather significant assumptions for a person
> who doesn't assume.

If that area wasn't an AIRSTRIP as the OP stated in his question, then I
would assume the worst and prepare for it. Airstrip to me implies it is
an airport with a grass runway and information on it should be available
during preflight with a simple phone call to the owner (if a private
airport) or the operator (if a public airport).

What does airstrip mean to you? Maybe we have different definitions
here, but I don't consider a farmer's field in which I'm making an
emergency landing to constitute and airstrip.

Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> If that area wasn't an AIRSTRIP as the OP stated in his question, then I
> would assume the worst and prepare for it. Airstrip to me implies it is
> an airport with a grass runway and information on it should be available
> during preflight with a simple phone call to the owner (if a private
> airport) or the operator (if a public airport).
>
> What does airstrip mean to you? Maybe we have different definitions
> here, but I don't consider a farmer's field in which I'm making an
> emergency landing to constitute and airstrip.

A grass AIRSTRIP may or may not have the same surface under that grass
as a non-airstrip grass area. Point is you may have to land on grass
that you did not check out prior to your takeoff -- an AIRSTRIP *or* a
farmer's front yard. According to your prior posts, anyone who
associates a grass strip with a soft-field landing needs remedial
instruction because grass strips have hard surfaces underneath ... yet
you say you don't assume.

> > No one said it was rocket science. This pilot wasn't clear on something
> > and did the right thing before attempting it -- ASK! Regardless of the
> > reason (an "original" CFI that didn't spend enough time on it, an
> > examiner that did not cover it, a lot of time passing between having
> > learned it but never actually *done* it, he/she should not be made to
> > feel ashamed or belittled for ASKING for help/advice ... which is
> > exactly the attitude you took.

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> No, that isn't the attitude I took at all. I think it was great he
> asked for advice. It was some of the advice that I took exception with,
> not the asking for it. Read it again, Sam...

No need to re-read.
Yes, he asked for advice, and you took exception with the person who
suggested he take a CFI along, belittling the idea that any licensed
pilot should need or want a CFI for refresher in doing a landing on a
surface he's never experienced before ... just because YOUR way of
expanding your skill happens to be trying it on your own.

> Grass strips in general aren't soft fields.

They generally are soft where I am, as are the dirt/sand strips.

> I gave him a very correct answer for the question he asked.

Debatable.

> Others seemed to want to give him answers for a lot of
> questions he didn't ask.

He asked about landing on grass. Others pointed out that the surface
beneath the grass may have any number of inconsistencies, including a
soft surface. You, on the other hand, would have him think that there is
only ONE correct answer -- YOURS, that grass strips are not soft fields.

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> Again, only if this is a soft field. Grass strip isn't synonymous with soft field. If you don't
> know the difference, I suggest some remedial instruction.


Ok Matt, I fess up to being one who doesn't. Isn't a non-asphalt
surface like grass what's called soft-field? This looks confusing...

Ramapriya

Your years must be pretty long, we only have 52 weeks in our
years.



"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
|A Lieberman wrote:
|
| > On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:10:28 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
| >
| > snip

| I'm sure I can't prove it to you, but I flew out of a
grass strip for 6
| years (7N1 - it is no longer grass though). It was only
very rarely a
| soft field, actually for about two weeks each spring when
the frost was
| leaving the ground. It was a hard field for the remaining
52 weeks of
| the year.
|
| snip
| Matt

But I have seen picnic tables and chairs. Some logs are
also moved around camp fires and used as benches.
Unattended airports are vandalized almost as often as other
places.



"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Vandals tip headstones over in cemeteries and sometimes
| > visit grass strips for similar reasons. If the airport
| > isn't attended, a low and slow look-see is a good idea.
If
| > attended, a telephone call can alert you to any new
issues,
| > such as a prairie dog colony.
|
| I've never seen a headstone on a grass airstrip. :-)
I'll take your
| word for it, however.
|
| Matt

In article >,
A Lieberman > wrote:


>
> See above, grass strips are not concrete runways, the sub surface the grass
> is growing on adds drag to ground ops which is a distinctly different
> technique then hard top runways / taxiways.
>
> Not only that, more irregularities in the surface and taxiing or landing at
> an excessive speed WITHOUT using soft field techniques will just invite you
> to a potential prop strike if your nose wheel just happens to dig in.
>

I've got somewhere between 3500 and 4000 landings on a grass strip.
That strip is not "soft" except in spring right after the snow melt.
And it isn't clay, it's just turf. Sure, it is "softer" than a paved
runway but not to the point where any special technique is required. I
fly a 206 out of the strip. I have flown a Caravan there and quite often
we have a Twin Otter operate out of our strip. Even the heavier
airplanes don't require any special technique due to being operated on
grass.

Yes, it takes a bit more power to taxi because of the drag of the grass.
By the same token you use less brake on landing. If you land during or
soon after a rain shower you'll be wishing you had an anchor to throw to
help you get stopped!! <G> On our strip there is no worry about "digging
in the nosewheel". The surface is just too firm for that to happen.

Now, your assumption that all grass fields are soft and then applying
soft-field techniques isn't going to hurt you, I would do the same thing
on a strip I didn't have any information on, but it's silly to state
that special techniques are "required" just because a runway is grass
and not paved.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 01:47:11 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

> But when you are taxiing back after landing that 30 knot headwind is now
> a 30 knot tailwind. Holding full up elevator with that strong a
> tailwind will put a lot more weight on the nosewheel and may even flip
> the airplane on its nose. You did learn proper control positioning for
> taxiing in strong windds during your primary instruction didn't you?

Duh, good point :-)

Helps to read you did say taxiing back...

Allen

On 17 Jun 2006 20:54:11 -0700, wrote:

> Ok Matt, I fess up to being one who doesn't. Isn't a non-asphalt
> surface like grass what's called soft-field? This looks confusing...

Just wondering what other CFI's feel about this thread???? Do you teach
your students to use soft field landing techniques on grass fields???

Mine did..... On real grass too!

I will post this question on rec.aviation.student.

Allen

A Lieberman wrote:

> Incorrect advice.....
>
> You want to land as softly and as slowly as possible on a grass strip.
>

<Soft Field Technique Snipped>

A Grass strip is not synonymous with "Soft Field".

If its a well prepared, dry, grass or dirt strip its likely NOT very
soft, and the "land normal" advice is pretty much on the money.

The turf and dirt strips are actually a little more forgiving than paved
strips when you are learning crosswinds and playing with tailwheels...

Dave

Matt Whiting wrote:

> This is funny. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you have little
> experience on grass runways, especially short ones.

As PIC, I have to make decisions for myself about many things,
including when I want a refresher with a CFI. Maybe you don't respect
my choice to do so, and that's your perogative, but in the end, it's my
butt on the line, not yours.

When I've read some of your responses on this thread, I've been
reminded of some of the risk factors outlined in 'The Killing Zone', a
book that describes attitudes that kill pilots. You might be a
multi-thousand hour pilot, but if you're really as complacent as you
sound, I believe you are at an elevated risk of mishap.

I hope that any low time pilots you correspond with don't feel
pressured to fly beyond their abilities because of what you've written.

Regards,

Ben Hallert

A,

> ***I don't need the yoke in full aft position AFTER touchdown on paved
> runways.***

Of course you do, if you want to make the nose wheel assembly last longer.

> You don't want to use brakes at all for grass strips on landing or you will
> invite the chances of the nose wheel digging in.

Simply not true in that general way. On very soft grass strips, yes. On a
normal, well kept grass strip - no way. Blicking wheels and sliding on wet
grass is much more of a problem with heavy braking.

> Keeping the yoke full aft after landing to shut down will reduce the
> pressure on the nose wheel and shift the weight back on your mains where it
> needs to be.

Yep. On asphalt, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt,

> You guys make landing on a grass strip sound like rocket science. This
> just isn't a big deal and any competent private pilot should have no
> trouble doing this.
>

I fully agree. Most GA airfields here in Germany are grass, BTW, so it's
the other way around here: Students make a big deal out of landing on
pavement. Funny!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>Again, only if this is a soft field. Grass strip isn't synonymous with soft field. If you don't
>>know the difference, I suggest some remedial instruction.
>
>
>
> Ok Matt, I fess up to being one who doesn't. Isn't a non-asphalt
> surface like grass what's called soft-field? This looks confusing...

A soft-field is one where the wheels sink into the surface enough that
standard landing and taxiing techniques aren't effective. This can be
caused by a number of things such as: very soggy sod, sand, small pea
size gravel, deep or very wet snow, very tall grass, etc.

A reasonably well maintained grass strip with grass mowed to 4" or less
and not built on a sand pit or peat bog or supersaturated with water as
after a couple of days of heavy rain or during the spring thaw, is NOT a
soft field and standard landing and taxiing techniques work just fine.
You can land and then use power to hold the nose off if you want and
then taxi like a banshee back down the field, but just hope none of the
locals are watching as they'll get a good chuckle. And most such fields
I've landed at will have at least one old codger who'll make a comment
when you exit the airplane. :-)


Matt

Dale wrote:

> In article >,
> A Lieberman > wrote:
>
>
>
>>See above, grass strips are not concrete runways, the sub surface the grass
>>is growing on adds drag to ground ops which is a distinctly different
>>technique then hard top runways / taxiways.
>>
>>Not only that, more irregularities in the surface and taxiing or landing at
>>an excessive speed WITHOUT using soft field techniques will just invite you
>>to a potential prop strike if your nose wheel just happens to dig in.
>>
>
>
> I've got somewhere between 3500 and 4000 landings on a grass strip.
> That strip is not "soft" except in spring right after the snow melt.
> And it isn't clay, it's just turf. Sure, it is "softer" than a paved
> runway but not to the point where any special technique is required. I
> fly a 206 out of the strip. I have flown a Caravan there and quite often
> we have a Twin Otter operate out of our strip. Even the heavier
> airplanes don't require any special technique due to being operated on
> grass.
>
> Yes, it takes a bit more power to taxi because of the drag of the grass.
> By the same token you use less brake on landing. If you land during or
> soon after a rain shower you'll be wishing you had an anchor to throw to
> help you get stopped!! <G> On our strip there is no worry about "digging
> in the nosewheel". The surface is just too firm for that to happen.
>
> Now, your assumption that all grass fields are soft and then applying
> soft-field techniques isn't going to hurt you, I would do the same thing
> on a strip I didn't have any information on, but it's silly to state
> that special techniques are "required" just because a runway is grass
> and not paved.

Finally, someone else with some experience and understanding. You are
well above me. I probably have only 400 or so grass strip landings.
But the last 399 weren't much different than the first one. :-)

After a heavy rain you certainly had to use soft-field techniques
likewise right after the airport re-opened after spring thaw, but the
remaining 95% of the year, it was just like landing on a hard surface
runway other than, as you say, needing very slightly more power to taxi.

Matt

A Lieberman wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 01:47:11 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>But when you are taxiing back after landing that 30 knot headwind is now
>>a 30 knot tailwind. Holding full up elevator with that strong a
>>tailwind will put a lot more weight on the nosewheel and may even flip
>>the airplane on its nose. You did learn proper control positioning for
>>taxiing in strong windds during your primary instruction didn't you?
>
>
> Duh, good point :-)
>
> Helps to read you did say taxiing back...

Yes, and that is why I'm against teaching pilots to fly using techniques
that aren't required for the conditions. If you get a low-time pilot
all jazzed up thinking that he needs to treat every grass strip like a
peat bog, then he's going to be focused on keeping that elevator back in
his gut as he taxis back. And as soon as he turns around after the
landing roll-out, he's going to start moving like a banshee on the hard
surface since he's using so much throttle to keep the nosewheel from
digging in. Then he'll back off the throttle to slow down since the
field isn't really soft. However, dollars to donuts he won't think to
simultaneously release the nosewheel. Once the airflow from the prop is
gone and not offseting the tail wind, bad things can happen.

That is why I'm fairly adamant that a pilot should fly the conditions
that exist, not some hypothetical condition that is likely to exist less
than 5% of the time, which is probably about how often a grass field is
also a soft field. And you can almost always find out when that 5%
occurs by either watching the weather or calling ahead to the field.


Matt

A Lieberman wrote:

> On 17 Jun 2006 20:54:11 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>>Ok Matt, I fess up to being one who doesn't. Isn't a non-asphalt
>>surface like grass what's called soft-field? This looks confusing...
>
>
> Just wondering what other CFI's feel about this thread???? Do you teach
> your students to use soft field landing techniques on grass fields???
>
> Mine did..... On real grass too!
>
> I will post this question on rec.aviation.student.

Interesting question. It will be fun to see the responses. Might want
to capture the age of the instructors as well. I'm betting you'll see a
difference between those less than about 50 years old or less than say
30 years of instruction experience and those older or more experienced
that this.

I was taught not to use a "standard" approach for very many things, but
to use what is required by the prevailing conditions. Just as we
discussed some time back regarding landing airplanes of difference
character. I was taught to apply whatever control pressure or motion
was required to get the performance desired and not to worry what I'd
done before in that airplane or a different airplane. People who
weren't taught this way are the ones that land a 182 on the nosewheel
and bend the firewall. The "well that's how hard I pulled to flare in
my C-150" is a pretty poor excuse for a pranged airplane and my primary
instructor would dis-own me if I ever made such a comment.

Giving a "standard" solution that should be used "always" is, in my
opinion, the sign of very poor instruction and judgement.


Matt

Ben Hallert wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>This is funny. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you have little
>>experience on grass runways, especially short ones.
>
>
> As PIC, I have to make decisions for myself about many things,
> including when I want a refresher with a CFI. Maybe you don't respect
> my choice to do so, and that's your perogative, but in the end, it's my
> butt on the line, not yours.

That's correct, and I hope you seek out good enough instruction to save it.


> When I've read some of your responses on this thread, I've been
> reminded of some of the risk factors outlined in 'The Killing Zone', a
> book that describes attitudes that kill pilots. You might be a
> multi-thousand hour pilot, but if you're really as complacent as you
> sound, I believe you are at an elevated risk of mishap.

If you think that advocating that someone use the correct technique for
the prevailing situation and not try to scare someone into using
improper technique just because the field is green instead of black, is
a poor attitude, then I feel sorry for you.

Matt

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Matt,
>
>
>>You guys make landing on a grass strip sound like rocket science. This
>>just isn't a big deal and any competent private pilot should have no
>>trouble doing this.
>>
>
>
> I fully agree. Most GA airfields here in Germany are grass, BTW, so it's
> the other way around here: Students make a big deal out of landing on
> pavement. Funny!

How true! I was fortunate in learning on a field that had asphalt and
grass side by side. We used the asphalt in the winter (it damaged the
grass to plow snow from it) and early spring during the thawing season,
and then used the grass during late spring, summer and fall. Switching
from grass to asphalt is simply a non-event.

Actually, asphalt does present more challenges in many ways as it is
much less forgiving of any longitudinal missalignment at touchdown. It
is also less forgiving if you land with a stuck brake.


Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Giving a "standard" solution that should be used "always" is, in my
> opinion, the sign of very poor instruction and judgement.

Then why would you be so adamant that grass is not synonymous with soft
field? Grass isn't synonymous with a hard surface in *every* case,
either. It may or may not be, and as another poster said, if you use
soft-field technique and it's a hard surface underneath, no harm done;
if you assume it is a hard surface under the grass because someone on
the newsgroup told you grass is *not* synonymous with soft-field and it
turns out NOT to be ...

And no, I'm not talking about an airstrip that you an check out as part
of your preflight; I'm talking about the blanket generalization that
grass is not soft-field.

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> I was taught not to use a "standard" approach for very many things, but to use what
> is required by the prevailing conditions. Just as we discussed some time back
> regarding landing airplanes of difference character.

> Giving a "standard" solution that should be used "always" is, in my opinion, the sign of
> very poor instruction and judgement.
>
> Matt


Matt, you seem to suggest that the way to go is to actually encourage
each pilot to think for himself, even if it means wearing his hat at a
different angle, depending on prevalent conditions. Have I understood
you correctly?

Ramapriya

Matt Whiting schrieb:

> You guys make landing on a grass strip sound like rocket science. This
> just isn't a big deal and any competent private pilot should have no
> trouble doing this.

I fully agree with this part. Personally, I even think landing on a
reasonably maintained grass strip is much easier than on asphalt,
because it's much more forgiving. Having learnt to fly taildraggers on
grass, my first landing on asphalt was, well, interesting.

> A competent pilot should have the skill to gradually expand
> their skill and experience on their own. Landing on grass just isn't
> something that should require a CFI.

And here I *completely* disagree. A competent pilot is a pilot who knows
and respects his limits and, when in doubt, stays on the safe side. If a
low timer who has never seen a grass strip before feels unsafe to
explore it on his own, then by all means, encourage him to get an FI!
The worst (best?) thing that can happen is that he'll learn that it
actually wasn't a big deal. And if the FI was competent, he'll probably
learn a couple more things, too. But to discourage a low timer to rent
an FI when he feels unsafe is simply reckless. The question is not
whether you or I would do this, the only question is wheter that
particular pilot feels safe. And blaming his primary instruction is
rather pointless and doesn't help him the least bit.

> He didn't ask how to land on a grass airstrip
> that is saturated with water and is located on a peat bog.

Each and every grass strip I know is sometimes saturated with water. And
if the only thing the FI does is to explain this, he was already cheaper
than to find it out by experience.

Stefan

wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>I was taught not to use a "standard" approach for very many things, but to use what
>>is required by the prevailing conditions. Just as we discussed some time back
>>regarding landing airplanes of difference character.
>
>
>>Giving a "standard" solution that should be used "always" is, in my opinion, the sign of
>>very poor instruction and judgement.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>
> Matt, you seem to suggest that the way to go is to actually encourage
> each pilot to think for himself, even if it means wearing his hat at a
> different angle, depending on prevalent conditions. Have I understood
> you correctly?

Yes, I think I generally feel that way. The best flight instructor
can't teach you every possible way to handle every possible situation
you will encounter. They should teach you the basic principles and
teach you judgement so that you can, with reasonable safety - but not
absolute safety, expand your skills beyond what they taught you.

I believe the attitude that says you shouldn't try anything new without
having an instructor onboard is the result of people looking for
absolute safety in all they do. I certainly don't share that
philosophy. Making a person feel paranoid by suggesting that landing on
a typical grass field is a high risk maneuver that should only be
attempted with a CFI onboard is just anathema to my way of thinking.

Then again, I'm not one of the liberals who thinks the world should be
100% safe, that the government should protect me from myself, and that
no matter what I do wrong, I can find someone else to blame. Part of
the joy of flying to me is gradually expanding my flying skills beyond
what they are today. I realize I incur some additional risk in doing
so. However, landing for the first time on a typical grass airstrip
just doesn't even register on the "additional risk" meter.

Matt

> However, landing for the first time on a typical grass airstrip just doesn't even register on the "additional risk" meter.

Somebody with lots of experience doing both could draw on his experience
and say that, and it might even be correct (that inexperienced pilots
should not have a problem).

However the fact that most FBOs prohibit landings on grass strips also
carries some weight. If in fact grass strips "don't even register on
the additinal risk meter", I would expect that most FBOs would not have
that restriction. Insurance companies are in the "additional risk
meter" business.

New pilots may not realize that FBOs and insurance companies don't know
what they're doing, and that as new pilots they can disregard this
evidence that there's something else to consider. Certainly a
discussion with somebody who has landed on grass strips is warranted in
order to ensure that critical information (such as how to ascertain from
the air that this particular grass strip doesn't hide monsters), which
might have been forgotten between the classroom and the thousand hours
of landings on asphalt.

I learned how to fly in (ok, among) mountans in ground school. However,
before actually trying to cross the Rockys in a 172, I'd take an actual
mountain flying refresher from a CFI who flies in them.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> I believe the attitude that says you shouldn't try anything new without
> having an instructor onboard is the result of people looking for
> absolute safety in all they do. I certainly don't share that
> philosophy. Making a person feel paranoid by suggesting that landing on
> a typical grass field is a high risk maneuver that should only be
> attempted with a CFI onboard is just anathema to my way of thinking.

That's taking what was said **WAY** out of context. No one suggested
that a person shouldn't try anything new without an instructor, nor did
anyone say that landing on grass is a "high risk maneuver that should
only be attempted with a CFI onboard".

"Rent a CFI" was a SUGGESTION made to a person who asked for tips/advice
about landing on grass ... nothing more, nothing less. You then came in
and proceeded to belittle the idea that any licensed private pilot
should need or want a CFI along for a grass landing because it is a
private pilot maneuver, and stated that if someone sought this, it is a
reflection on the "original" CFI -- judgments based on how YOU do
things, which isn't necessarily the way *everyone* thinks/does/proceeds
when they are unclear about something.

> Then again, I'm not one of the liberals who thinks the world should be
> 100% safe, that the government should protect me from myself, and that
> no matter what I do wrong, I can find someone else to blame.

Again, this is a HUGE stretch on your part (especially for one who
claims he doesn't make assumptions). It was a simple
suggestion/tip/piece of advice given with the same intent to help as all
the rest.

> Part of the joy of flying to me is gradually expanding my flying
> skills beyond what they are today.

That's likely what the original poster is doing also, that's why he
asked for tips and advice. One of the ways *some* licensed pilots do
that is to bring along a CFI, as one poster suggested. Just because
that's not how YOU expand or sharpen or review your skills doesn't mean
it's cause to belittle someone else for not using the same technique you
do.

> I realize I incur some additional risk in doing
> so. However, landing for the first time on a typical grass airstrip
> just doesn't even register on the "additional risk" meter.

No one said he should take a CFI with him because it's risky; they just
suggested it as an option for a first time non-paved runway landing,
even if he/she ends up just sitting there. What's that have to do with
your feelings about liberals or about the world being 100% safe? It was
a simple suggestion of a way to have the tips and advice sitting right
next to you while you do it.

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:14:25 +0100, Quilljar wrote:
>
>> No difference, just land normally...
>
> Incorrect advice.....
>
> You want to land as softly and as slowly as possible on a grass strip.
>
> Also want to keep the nosewheel off terra firma as long as possible so it
> doesn't run the risk of "digging in" from the weight of the engine and
> prop
> when the nose wheel does touch down.
>
> After touchtown, the yoke should be full aft.
>
> Taxiing on soft fields is also significantly different. You hold the yoke
> back full aft and taxi with more power to ease the pressure of the nose
> wheel.
>
> Allen

Sounds to me like you have turf runway and soft field mixed up. The two are
definitely not the same. Normal turf is really no different that hard
surface except it is more forgiving and tires last much, much longer.

Now that nose wheel thing I don't know about. I've avoided those dastardly
things for years.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>> Again, only if this is a soft field. Grass strip isn't synonymous with
>> soft field. If you don't
>> know the difference, I suggest some remedial instruction.
>
>
> Ok Matt, I fess up to being one who doesn't. Isn't a non-asphalt
> surface like grass what's called soft-field? This looks confusing...
>
> Ramapriya
>

It certainly is not. Turf in no way implies soft field. I'm beginning to
understand why so many pilots go comatose at the thought of landing on grass
when in fact it is much more forgiving than hard surface.

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:33:32 GMT, john smith wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> A Lieberman > wrote:
>>
>>>> No difference, just land normally...
>>
>>> Incorrect advice.....
>>> You want to land as softly and as slowly as possible on a grass strip.
>>> Also want to keep the nosewheel off terra firma as long as possible so
>>> it
>>> doesn't run the risk of "digging in" from the weight of the engine and
>>> prop
>>> when the nose wheel does touch down.
>>> After touchtown, the yoke should be full aft.
>>
>> You mean you don't do a normal landing this way?
>
> ***I don't need the yoke in full aft position AFTER touchdown on paved
> runways.***

I do

> You don't want to use brakes at all for grass strips on landing or you
> will
> invite the chances of the nose wheel digging in.

Nonsense

> Keeping the yoke full aft after landing to shut down will reduce the
> pressure on the nose wheel and shift the weight back on your mains where
> it
> needs to be.

Try that with a stiff tail wind and you will soon find out how wrong you
are.

> Allen

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> Matt,
>>
>>
>>>You guys make landing on a grass strip sound like rocket science. This
>>>just isn't a big deal and any competent private pilot should have no
>>>trouble doing this.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I fully agree. Most GA airfields here in Germany are grass, BTW, so it's
>> the other way around here: Students make a big deal out of landing on
>> pavement. Funny!
>
> How true! I was fortunate in learning on a field that had asphalt and
> grass side by side. We used the asphalt in the winter (it damaged the
> grass to plow snow from it) and early spring during the thawing season,
> and then used the grass during late spring, summer and fall. Switching
> from grass to asphalt is simply a non-event.
>
> Actually, asphalt does present more challenges in many ways as it is much
> less forgiving of any longitudinal missalignment at touchdown. It is also
> less forgiving if you land with a stuck brake.
>
>
> Matt

During my training neither I nor the CFIs were allowed to land on turf.
Soon as I passed the check ride I could rent from the same FBO and land
anywhere I wanted without additional training but the CFIs were still under
the no turf rule. First flight after the checkride I headed for a turf
strip and haven't looked back since. I suspect those CFIs would be the last
people someone seeking guidance on turf landings would want to talk to. For
those seeking a CFIs advice be very, very careful in choosing the CFI and
make sure they have experience in the area you are seeking advice.

Jose wrote:
> > You are the second person who can't distinguish between a grass strip and a soft field.
>
> Yanno, a grass strip should be treated as a soft field unless you know
> otherwise. An unfamiliar grass strip can hide problems that an
> unfamiliar asphalt strip would not.

We have NOTAMS for that sort of information

Dave Stadt wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>Again, only if this is a soft field. Grass strip isn't synonymous with
>>>soft field. If you don't
>>>know the difference, I suggest some remedial instruction.
>>
>>
>>Ok Matt, I fess up to being one who doesn't. Isn't a non-asphalt
>>surface like grass what's called soft-field? This looks confusing...
>>
>>Ramapriya
>>
>
>
> It certainly is not. Turf in no way implies soft field. I'm beginning to
> understand why so many pilots go comatose at the thought of landing on grass
> when in fact it is much more forgiving than hard surface.

Yes, Dave, I'm with you in being incredulous about this. I guess I was
fortunate to learn from an old timer who taught simultaneously on
asphalt and grass (N38). He'd often change runways on me when I was on
short final. The runways were only about 70' apart so no big deal.

Matt

Dave Stadt wrote:

> During my training neither I nor the CFIs were allowed to land on turf.
> Soon as I passed the check ride I could rent from the same FBO and land
> anywhere I wanted without additional training but the CFIs were still under
> the no turf rule. First flight after the checkride I headed for a turf
> strip and haven't looked back since. I suspect those CFIs would be the last
> people someone seeking guidance on turf landings would want to talk to. For
> those seeking a CFIs advice be very, very careful in choosing the CFI and
> make sure they have experience in the area you are seeking advice.

That seems like a truly bizarre rule. Was this insurance related,
perhaps? I can't see any sane FBO having these sort of rules voluntarily.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>> During my training neither I nor the CFIs were allowed to land on turf.
>> Soon as I passed the check ride I could rent from the same FBO and land
>> anywhere I wanted without additional training but the CFIs were still
>> under the no turf rule. First flight after the checkride I headed for a
>> turf strip and haven't looked back since. I suspect those CFIs would be
>> the last people someone seeking guidance on turf landings would want to
>> talk to. For those seeking a CFIs advice be very, very careful in
>> choosing the CFI and make sure they have experience in the area you are
>> seeking advice.
>
> That seems like a truly bizarre rule. Was this insurance related,
> perhaps? I can't see any sane FBO having these sort of rules voluntarily.
>
>
> Matt

No one ever accused this particular FBO of being sane. I have come across
similar bizarre rules. They are often blamed on insurance companies but
seldom is that the reason. Some people like making rules no matter how
idiotic. Thank goodness I don't have to put up the rental nonsense anymore.

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> That seems like a truly bizarre rule. Was this insurance related,
> perhaps? I can't see any sane FBO having these sort of rules voluntarily.

Nearly all the flight schools/FBOs in this area have that rule, even the
one that specializes in tailwheel instruction. But again, most non-paved
strips here are considered "soft". With the school I worked at, it was
both insurance related and they don't want additional wear&tear and
maintenance on the aircraft. After only a few times landing and taxiing
my own airplane in the dirt, I could see it taking its toll on the plane
and avoid it now, if at all possible. Not bizarre at all if you're the
one paying the bills on the airplane, and you care what it looks like.

wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>That seems like a truly bizarre rule. Was this insurance related,
>>perhaps? I can't see any sane FBO having these sort of rules voluntarily.
>
>
> Nearly all the flight schools/FBOs in this area have that rule, even the
> one that specializes in tailwheel instruction. But again, most non-paved
> strips here are considered "soft". With the school I worked at, it was
> both insurance related and they don't want additional wear&tear and
> maintenance on the aircraft. After only a few times landing and taxiing
> my own airplane in the dirt, I could see it taking its toll on the plane
> and avoid it now, if at all possible. Not bizarre at all if you're the
> one paying the bills on the airplane, and you care what it looks like.

I agree if you are talking a dirt or mud strip rather than grass.
Decent grass is much easier on the airplane than pavement. Less stress
on the gear, less wear on the brakes and much less wear on the tires.
The FBO where I learned to fly required us to use the grass runway
whenever it was usable as his tires lasted almost forever on the grass,
but not long at all with students landing on the asphalt. :-)
Obviously, we're talking about his other students! :-)

I paid the bills on my Skylane for six years and was very happy to have
it based at a grass strip. I sold my share of the airplane six years
after I bought it and we never replaced the tires during that time and
the airplane flew about 800 hours during this time and made probably at
least that many landings and likely more, probably 600-700 on the grass
and the rest on asphalt at our destinations. I'm not sure, but I don't
know if you could get 800 landings on asphalt on a set of tires.

You folks that fly exclusively on pavement, what is your typical tire
life in number of landings?


Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> I agree if you are talking a dirt or mud strip rather than grass.
> Decent grass is much easier on the airplane than pavement. Less stress
> on the gear, less wear on the brakes and much less wear on the tires.
> The FBO where I learned to fly required us to use the grass runway
> whenever it was usable as his tires lasted almost forever on the grass,
> but not long at all with students landing on the asphalt. :-)
> Obviously, we're talking about his other students! :-)

:-) That's true. There are very few grass strips to be found here, the
unpaved strips are usually dirt/sand. Not only is there wear and tear on
tires and paint, but the dust that gets kicked up as you taxi gets
sucked into every inch of your airplane.

> You folks that fly exclusively on pavement, what is your typical tire
> life in number of landings?

I've never tracked it. I figure this is where I fly, and pavement is it
.... when I need tires, I need tires.

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> It certainly is not. Turf in no way implies soft field. I'm beginning to
> understand why so many pilots go comatose at the thought of landing on grass
> when in fact it is much more forgiving than hard surface.


Thanks to both you and Matt but what do you mean by grass being more
forgiving than a hard surface? I'm no pilot but I think that if one of
your reversers deploys just a touch later than the other, you'd be in
greater trouble on grass. There'd also probably be increased chances of
debris ingestion when reversing. And if you want to kick after touching
down in a crab, you might want a hard surface underneath.

Others here might hold a different view on this.

Ramapriya

NOTAMS are often not available or are badly out of date.
Grass runways will be NOTAM L and not distributed out of the
local area or included in a briefing unless you demand that
the be checked.


"george" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jose wrote:
| > > You are the second person who can't distinguish
between a grass strip and a soft field.
| >
| > Yanno, a grass strip should be treated as a soft field
unless you know
| > otherwise. An unfamiliar grass strip can hide problems
that an
| > unfamiliar asphalt strip would not.
|
| We have NOTAMS for that sort of information
|

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Dave Stadt wrote:
> >
> > It certainly is not. Turf in no way implies soft field. I'm beginning to
> > understand why so many pilots go comatose at the thought of landing on grass
> > when in fact it is much more forgiving than hard surface.
>
>
> Thanks to both you and Matt but what do you mean by grass being more
> forgiving than a hard surface? I'm no pilot but I think that if one of
> your reversers deploys just a touch later than the other, you'd be in
> greater trouble on grass. There'd also probably be increased chances of
> debris ingestion when reversing. And if you want to kick after touching
> down in a crab, you might want a hard surface underneath.
>
> Others here might hold a different view on this.
>
> Ramapriya

What reversers? We are talking about light, General Aviation airplanes
here, not big jets! We have brakes, flaps, propellers, etc.

wrote:

> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>>It certainly is not. Turf in no way implies soft field. I'm beginning to
>>understand why so many pilots go comatose at the thought of landing on grass
>>when in fact it is much more forgiving than hard surface.
>
>
>
> Thanks to both you and Matt but what do you mean by grass being more
> forgiving than a hard surface? I'm no pilot but I think that if one of
> your reversers deploys just a touch later than the other, you'd be in
> greater trouble on grass. There'd also probably be increased chances of
> debris ingestion when reversing. And if you want to kick after touching
> down in a crab, you might want a hard surface underneath.

Well, you wouldn't likely fly a typical jet on grass! Reversers aren't
a concern on the airplanes that I fly.

It is more forgiving in a couple of ways:

1. The tires spin up more slowling since they can slide along the grass
as they touch down. You don't see the puff of smoke as often is the
case on pavement.

2. Likewise, the reduced friction also allows the tires to sideslip a
little more. So, if you touchdown with less than perfect alignment, you
won't have the sudden veering that will happen on pavement. However,
this is absolutely not an excuse to be sloppy and have less than perfect
longitudinal alignment at touchdown.

> Others here might hold a different view on this.

Undoubtedly! :-)


Matt

> wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> That seems like a truly bizarre rule. Was this insurance related,
>> perhaps? I can't see any sane FBO having these sort of rules
>> voluntarily.
>
> Nearly all the flight schools/FBOs in this area have that rule, even the
> one that specializes in tailwheel instruction. But again, most non-paved
> strips here are considered "soft". With the school I worked at, it was
> both insurance related and they don't want additional wear&tear and
> maintenance on the aircraft. After only a few times landing and taxiing
> my own airplane in the dirt, I could see it taking its toll on the plane
> and avoid it now, if at all possible. Not bizarre at all if you're the
> one paying the bills on the airplane, and you care what it looks like.

Around here the FBOs that rent taildraggers only allow operation on grass.
Grass causes no additional wear and tear and in fact is easier on tires. We
are talking about turf runways not dirt.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>>
>> It certainly is not. Turf in no way implies soft field. I'm beginning
>> to
>> understand why so many pilots go comatose at the thought of landing on
>> grass
>> when in fact it is much more forgiving than hard surface.
>
>
> Thanks to both you and Matt but what do you mean by grass being more
> forgiving than a hard surface? I'm no pilot but I think that if one of
> your reversers deploys just a touch later than the other, you'd be in
> greater trouble on grass. There'd also probably be increased chances of
> debris ingestion when reversing. And if you want to kick after touching
> down in a crab, you might want a hard surface underneath.
>
> Others here might hold a different view on this.
>
> Ramapriya

I removed the reversers years ago.

> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > During my training neither I nor the CFIs were allowed to land on turf.
> > Soon as I passed the check ride I could rent from the same FBO and land
> > anywhere I wanted without additional training but the CFIs were still under
> > the no turf rule. First flight after the checkride I headed for a turf
> > strip and haven't looked back since. I suspect those CFIs would be the
> > last people someone seeking guidance on turf landings would want to talk to.
> > For those seeking a CFIs advice be very, very careful in choosing
> > the CFI and make sure they have experience in the area you are seeking
> > advice.

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> That seems like a truly bizarre rule. Was this insurance related,
> perhaps? I can't see any sane FBO having these sort of rules voluntarily.

The Ohio State University Flight School (Part 141) has such a rule. Yes,
it is insurance related.
The flying club I am in has an insurance stipulation about landing at
unimproved airfields. The local interpretion is that if it is on the
sectional, it is an improved airfield.

In article <X0%kg.49056$ZW3.38990@dukeread04>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> Grass can be long, short and even cut grass is a possible
> problem since it can be trapped inside of wheel pants.

Watched a friend's RV-6 head for the corn and go tail up after the left
wheel pant filled with cut grass and grab the wheel. Be very carefull if
you have tight fitting wheel pants and operate of a freshly cut grass
strip where the grass was long before cutting.
The incident required a year to rebuild the aircraft. New wood prop,
engine teardown and rebuild, rebuild the lower cowl, new wheel pant.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> Around here the FBOs that rent taildraggers only allow operation on grass.
> Grass causes no additional wear and tear and in fact is easier on tires. We
> are talking about turf runways not dirt.

We were talking about the rule at flight schools/FBOs prohibiting
landing rental aircraft on "unimproved" strips -- that encompasses
grass/turf and/or dirt and sand, or anything that's *not paved*. I did
not disagree that grass is easier on tires.

As a (fairly) recent private pilot (~125 hrs), I do not have much
experience with non-paved runway surfaces. The advice I have comes from
these points:

1) Have a qualified (ie, one experienced, current, and comfortable with
non-paved surface landings--grass, dirt, gravel, et al) instructor on
board until YOU are comfortable with non-paved surface operations.
2) Treat any non-paved surface as a soft-field operation until you know
otherwise. It may save your pocketbook.
3) A misconception I had was that you performed EITHER a soft-field
landing OR a short-field landing, but not a COMBINATION of the two.
Realize that if you land at an airstrip that is rough, but hard, you may
want to still use soft-field techniques. If it is short, but soft,
combine short- AND soft- field techniques.
4) See point #1. It all comes down to YOU and YOUR experience and
comfort level with non-paved surface operations, no matter what I or
others may say. YOU are pilot-in-command. Kudos to you for trying to
get more information, though. :)

Chris G, PP-ASEL
Salem, Oregon
flying (at) k7sle *d*o*t* com.

drclive wrote:
> Can anybody point out a good bibliography or article that describes the
> differences in landing on a grass airstrip for the first time, tips and
> advices? Thanks
>

In article >,
wrote:

> "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> > Around here the FBOs that rent taildraggers only allow operation on grass.
> > Grass causes no additional wear and tear and in fact is easier on tires.
> > We
> > are talking about turf runways not dirt.
>
> We were talking about the rule at flight schools/FBOs prohibiting
> landing rental aircraft on "unimproved" strips -- that encompasses
> grass/turf and/or dirt and sand, or anything that's *not paved*. I did
> not disagree that grass is easier on tires.


The operative word here is "unimproved." Usually, a dedicated grass
runway is an "improved" runway; therefore, it falls outside the
restriction. Improved runways include turf, pavement -- even graded
dirt, for that matter.

Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> The operative word here is "unimproved." Usually, a dedicated grass
> runway is an "improved" runway; therefore, it falls outside the
> restriction. Improved runways include turf, pavement -- even graded
> dirt, for that matter.

"Improved" at our flight school, and at other flight schools/FBOs at
this municipal airport and two others within a 15 nm radius means PAVED,
period. Grass, turf, graded dirt and any other *non-paved* surface is
considered unimproved ... as verified by FBO/flight school owners
whenever questioned by students/renters as they sign the aircraft rental
agreement. This applies to EVERYONE flying the aircraft - students,
licensed pilots, CFIs, examiners. That's not to say some don't land
elsewhere, but as with any "rule", there will always be some that think
it doesn't apply to them!

wrote in
:

> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>> The operative word here is "unimproved." Usually, a dedicated grass
>> runway is an "improved" runway; therefore, it falls outside the
>> restriction. Improved runways include turf, pavement -- even graded
>> dirt, for that matter.
>
> "Improved" at our flight school, and at other flight schools/FBOs at
> this municipal airport and two others within a 15 nm radius means
> PAVED, period. Grass, turf, graded dirt and any other *non-paved*
> surface is considered unimproved ... as verified by FBO/flight school
> owners whenever questioned by students/renters as they sign the
> aircraft rental agreement. This applies to EVERYONE flying the
> aircraft - students, licensed pilots, CFIs, examiners. That's not to
> say some don't land elsewhere, but as with any "rule", there will
> always be some that think it doesn't apply to them!
>

i doubt that would hold up if the FBO ever tried to sue you or otherwise
enforce it, if they mean PAVED, they should state PAVED...

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

schrieb:

> "Improved" at our flight school, and at other flight schools/FBOs at
> this municipal airport and two others within a 15 nm radius means PAVED,
> period.

I'm not a native English speaker, so what do I know, but if I had
translated that way in my English tests, I sure would have failed.

Stefan

Matt Whiting wrote:

> wrote:
snip


> 1. The tires spin up more slowling since they can slide along the grass
> as they touch down. You don't see the puff of smoke as often is the
> case on pavement.
>
> 2. Likewise, the reduced friction also allows the tires to sideslip a
> little more. So, if you touchdown with less than perfect alignment, you
> won't have the sudden veering that will happen on pavement. However,
> this is absolutely not an excuse to be sloppy and have less than perfect
> longitudinal alignment at touchdown.
>
>> Others here might hold a different view on this.
>
>
> Undoubtedly! :-)
>
>
> Matt

I really hate to admit this to the group, but I actually departed a dew
covered grass strip with the parking brake on. I have a 180 hp C-172
with C/S prop. I didn't even notice it until I landed at my destination
and tires started squeeling. Boy, did I slap that parking break off in a
hurry. changed tires at annual.

In article >,
Stefan > wrote:

> schrieb:
>
> > "Improved" at our flight school, and at other flight schools/FBOs at
> > this municipal airport and two others within a 15 nm radius means PAVED,
> > period.
>
> I'm not a native English speaker, so what do I know, but if I had
> translated that way in my English tests, I sure would have failed.

Little know fact... many US barristers get their undergraduate degree in
English before going on to get their JD.

All,

My goodness, this is great I searched in Google and in my books and I
couldn't find a lot of info on the matter, then I decided to try the
forum and then... bum... 112 posts, I really appreciated all answers,
it makes me think that the subject is not as simple as I though. I have
only 90hours in my log and only 12 hours solo, most of them in a
Diamond katana DV20 and never land in any other surface than asphalt. I
think I'm going to invest in one hour CFI, to get the minimum
knowledge transfer and then try it myself. Thank again for all the
answers.

Clive Rudd Fernandez

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Stefan > wrote:
>
> > schrieb:
> >
> > > "Improved" at our flight school, and at other flight schools/FBOs at
> > > this municipal airport and two others within a 15 nm radius means PAVED,
> > > period.
> >
> > I'm not a native English speaker, so what do I know, but if I had
> > translated that way in my English tests, I sure would have failed.
>
> Little know fact... many US barristers get their undergraduate degree in
> English before going on to get their JD.

> schrieb:
> > "Improved" at our flight school, and at other flight schools/FBOs at
> > this municipal airport and two others within a 15 nm radius means PAVED,
> > period.

Stefan:
> I'm not a native English speaker, so what do I know, but if I had
> translated that way in my English tests, I sure would have failed.

I agree with you that "improved" literally would include an actual
airstrip that has been graded and designated for such use; however, I'm
just relaying how the schools and FBOs in this area translate "improved"
in the rental agreement.

"drclive" > wrote:
> My goodness, this is great I searched in Google and in my books and I
> couldn't find a lot of info on the matter, then I decided to try the
> forum and then... bum... 112 posts, I really appreciated all answers,
> it makes me think that the subject is not as simple as I though. I have
> only 90hours in my log and only 12 hours solo, most of them in a
> Diamond katana DV20 and never land in any other surface than asphalt. I
> think I'm going to invest in one hour CFI, to get the minimum
> knowledge transfer and then try it myself. Thank again for all the
> answers.

Clive, congrats to you for posting a topic that inspired so many
thought-provoking responses! Please let us know how the grass landing
goes and also what your CFI has to say/advise during the hour. Good luck!

In article om>,
"drclive" > wrote:

> All,
>
> My goodness, this is great I searched in Google and in my books and I
> couldn't find a lot of info on the matter, then I decided to try the
> forum and then... bum... 112 posts, I really appreciated all answers,
> it makes me think that the subject is not as simple as I though. I have
> only 90hours in my log and only 12 hours solo, most of them in a
> Diamond katana DV20 and never land in any other surface than asphalt. I
> think I'm going to invest in one hour CFI, to get the minimum
> knowledge transfer and then try it myself. Thank again for all the
> answers.
>
> Clive Rudd Fernandez

Well, as they used to say during the 1960s, "There's nothing like good
grass!" :>)

john smith wrote:

> The Ohio State University Flight School (Part 141) has such a rule. Yes,
> it is insurance related.
> The flying club I am in has an insurance stipulation about landing at
> unimproved airfields. The local interpretion is that if it is on the
> sectional, it is an improved airfield.

That is pretty funny and I like that interpretation. I doubt the
insurance company would buy it though.

Matt

Chris G. wrote:

> 3) A misconception I had was that you performed EITHER a soft-field
> landing OR a short-field landing, but not a COMBINATION of the two.
> Realize that if you land at an airstrip that is rough, but hard, you may
> want to still use soft-field techniques. If it is short, but soft,
> combine short- AND soft- field techniques.

Absolutely. You do what is needed for the circumstances at hand. If a
strip is both short and soft, then you need to use both techniques.
What originally gave you the idea that you shouldn't combine the two
techniques? My primary instructor had me practice the combination often
as many soft fields are also short fields.


Matt

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Dave Stadt" > wrote:
>>
>>>Around here the FBOs that rent taildraggers only allow operation on grass.
>>>Grass causes no additional wear and tear and in fact is easier on tires.
>>>We
>>>are talking about turf runways not dirt.
>>
>>We were talking about the rule at flight schools/FBOs prohibiting
>>landing rental aircraft on "unimproved" strips -- that encompasses
>>grass/turf and/or dirt and sand, or anything that's *not paved*. I did
>>not disagree that grass is easier on tires.
>
>
>
> The operative word here is "unimproved." Usually, a dedicated grass
> runway is an "improved" runway; therefore, it falls outside the
> restriction. Improved runways include turf, pavement -- even graded
> dirt, for that matter.

I've never seen anthing close to an official definition for improved or
unimproved. Can you provide a reference? Does each insurance company
define it their own way? When I owned my 182, the insurance company
knew we were based on a grass strip so we had no such restrictions.


Matt

Ross Richardson wrote:

> I really hate to admit this to the group, but I actually departed a dew
> covered grass strip with the parking brake on. I have a 180 hp C-172
> with C/S prop. I didn't even notice it until I landed at my destination
> and tires started squeeling. Boy, did I slap that parking break off in a
> hurry. changed tires at annual.

I didn't hear a thing.... :-)

Matt

john smith wrote:

> In article >,
> Stefan > wrote:
>
>
schrieb:
>>
>>
>>>"Improved" at our flight school, and at other flight schools/FBOs at
>>>this municipal airport and two others within a 15 nm radius means PAVED,
>>>period.
>>
>>I'm not a native English speaker, so what do I know, but if I had
>>translated that way in my English tests, I sure would have failed.
>
>
> Little know fact... many US barristers get their undergraduate degree in
> English before going on to get their JD.

What is a barrister? Is that anything like a lawyer or attorney? :-)


Matt

drclive wrote:

> All,
>
> My goodness, this is great I searched in Google and in my books and I
> couldn't find a lot of info on the matter, then I decided to try the
> forum and then... bum... 112 posts, I really appreciated all answers,
> it makes me think that the subject is not as simple as I though. I have
> only 90hours in my log and only 12 hours solo, most of them in a
> Diamond katana DV20 and never land in any other surface than asphalt. I
> think I'm going to invest in one hour CFI, to get the minimum
> knowledge transfer and then try it myself. Thank again for all the
> answers.

Enjoy. Nothing like a well maintained grass strip on a warm summer day!

Just be sure to report back here with your experience.


Matt

("john smith" wrote)
> Little know fact... many US barristers get their undergraduate degree in
> English before going on to get their JD.


....and Theater. :-)

(Actually, some pre-law students are known to take a Theater class, or two,
or three.)


Montblack

> wrote in message
...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
>> Around here the FBOs that rent taildraggers only allow operation on
>> grass.
>> Grass causes no additional wear and tear and in fact is easier on tires.
>> We
>> are talking about turf runways not dirt.
>
> We were talking about the rule at flight schools/FBOs prohibiting
> landing rental aircraft on "unimproved" strips -- that encompasses
> grass/turf and/or dirt and sand, or anything that's *not paved*.

That is not the definition of an unimproved strip.

In article om>,
"drclive" > wrote:

> My goodness, this is great I searched in Google and in my books and I
> couldn't find a lot of info on the matter, then I decided to try the
> forum and then... bum... 112 posts, I really appreciated all answers,
> it makes me think that the subject is not as simple as I though.

It is simple, some people just make it complicated.

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> john smith wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Stefan > wrote:
> >
> >
> schrieb:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Improved" at our flight school, and at other flight schools/FBOs at
> >>>this municipal airport and two others within a 15 nm radius means PAVED,
> >>>period.
> >>
> >>I'm not a native English speaker, so what do I know, but if I had
> >>translated that way in my English tests, I sure would have failed.
> >
> >
> > Little know fact... many US barristers get their undergraduate degree in
> > English before going on to get their JD.
>
> What is a barrister? Is that anything like a lawyer or attorney? :-)

Do a Google search... "Rumpole of the Bailey"

> wrote:
> > We were talking about the rule at flight schools/FBOs prohibiting
> > landing rental aircraft on "unimproved" strips -- that encompasses
> > grass/turf and/or dirt and sand, or anything that's *not paved*.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> That is not the definition of an unimproved strip.

Tell it to the flight schools/FBOs at this and two other municipal
airports in this area. They all define it the same way, as above.

In article >,
wrote:

> > wrote:
> > > We were talking about the rule at flight schools/FBOs prohibiting
> > > landing rental aircraft on "unimproved" strips -- that encompasses
> > > grass/turf and/or dirt and sand, or anything that's *not paved*.
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> > That is not the definition of an unimproved strip.
>
> Tell it to the flight schools/FBOs at this and two other municipal
> airports in this area. They all define it the same way, as above.

What area is that?

> wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>> > We were talking about the rule at flight schools/FBOs prohibiting
>> > landing rental aircraft on "unimproved" strips -- that encompasses
>> > grass/turf and/or dirt and sand, or anything that's *not paved*.
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
>> That is not the definition of an unimproved strip.
>
> Tell it to the flight schools/FBOs at this and two other municipal
> airports in this area. They all define it the same way, as above.

To be honest, I could care less what FBOs in your area do.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> >> That is not the definition of an unimproved strip.

XMnushaL8y:
> > Tell it to the flight schools/FBOs at this and two other municipal
> > airports in this area. They all define it the same way, as above.

Dave Stadt:
> To be honest, I could care less what FBOs in your area do.

Likewise, but what's with the attitude? The point is that "improved" or
"unimproved" is obviously not defined the same by everyone. If you sign
a rental agreement that specifies same, ask for clarification...unless
you want to argue with them later. That's all.

> wrote in message
...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
>> >> That is not the definition of an unimproved strip.
>
> XMnushaL8y:
>> > Tell it to the flight schools/FBOs at this and two other municipal
>> > airports in this area. They all define it the same way, as above.
>
> Dave Stadt:
>> To be honest, I could care less what FBOs in your area do.
>
> Likewise, but what's with the attitude? The point is that "improved" or
> "unimproved" is obviously not defined the same by everyone. If you sign
> a rental agreement that specifies same, ask for clarification...unless
> you want to argue with them later. That's all.

Hopefully I will never have to go back to renting. What with all the goof
ball FBO rules I suspect flying would become a thing of the past for me.

In the UK lawyers are called barristers. There may be a further
distinction. I sat in on a trial for fun while in London on business.
They had the wigs, robes and all. Very eloquent speaking. Not like our
US TV shows.

Ross
KSWI

Matt Whiting wrote:

> john smith wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Stefan > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> schrieb:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Improved" at our flight school, and at other flight schools/FBOs at
>>>> this municipal airport and two others within a 15 nm radius means
>>>> PAVED, period.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not a native English speaker, so what do I know, but if I had
>>> translated that way in my English tests, I sure would have failed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Little know fact... many US barristers get their undergraduate degree
>> in English before going on to get their JD.
>
>
> What is a barrister? Is that anything like a lawyer or attorney? :-)
>
>
> Matt

The grass strip I regularly fly in and out of is irrigated. Nice smooth
and green in the summer here in no rain Texas.

Matt Whiting wrote:

> drclive wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> My goodness, this is great I searched in Google and in my books and I
>> couldn't find a lot of info on the matter, then I decided to try the
>> forum and then... bum... 112 posts, I really appreciated all answers,
>> it makes me think that the subject is not as simple as I though. I have
>> only 90hours in my log and only 12 hours solo, most of them in a
>> Diamond katana DV20 and never land in any other surface than asphalt. I
>> think I'm going to invest in one hour CFI, to get the minimum
>> knowledge transfer and then try it myself. Thank again for all the
>> answers.
>
>
> Enjoy. Nothing like a well maintained grass strip on a warm summer day!
>
> Just be sure to report back here with your experience.
>
>
> Matt

Howdy!

In article >,
Ross Richardson > wrote:
>In the UK lawyers are called barristers. There may be a further
>distinction. I sat in on a trial for fun while in London on business.
>They had the wigs, robes and all. Very eloquent speaking. Not like our
>US TV shows.
>
Barristers practice law before the bar -- that is, in court. Solicitors
practice law, but do not appear in court. The distinction is peculiar
to the UK. In the US, lawyers is lawyers.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix narrowwares
Bowie, MD, USA | http://whitewolfandphoenix.com
Proud member of the SCA Internet Whitewash Squad

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> What is a barrister? Is that anything like a lawyer or attorney? :-)

It's the job title given to those employees behind the counter at Starbucks
who serve you your double decaf, soy milk latte.

--
Peter

Michael Houghton schrieb:

> Barristers practice law before the bar -- that is, in court. Solicitors
> practice law, but do not appear in court. The distinction is peculiar
> to the UK. In the US, lawyers is lawyers.

Actually, this distinction is not peculiar to the UK at all but exists
in many countries.

Stefan

It was just a misconception I had until later in my training. I think
it was probably because there are significant differences in the
procedures (holding nose off vs, keep nose on the ground as much as
possible), they're tested separately in the PTS, and I didn't really
have a good practice strip for short/soft fields. My Instructor (aka my
Dad) did a good job explaining the need to combine techniques, I just
didn't get it until later on.

Chris

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Chris G. wrote:
>
>> 3) A misconception I had was that you performed EITHER a soft-field
>> landing OR a short-field landing, but not a COMBINATION of the two.
>> Realize that if you land at an airstrip that is rough, but hard, you may
>> want to still use soft-field techniques. If it is short, but soft,
>> combine short- AND soft- field techniques.
>
> Absolutely. You do what is needed for the circumstances at hand. If a
> strip is both short and soft, then you need to use both techniques. What
> originally gave you the idea that you shouldn't combine the two
> techniques? My primary instructor had me practice the combination often
> as many soft fields are also short fields.
>
>
> Matt

In article >,
(Michael Houghton) wrote:

> Howdy!
>
> In article >,
> Ross Richardson > wrote:
> >In the UK lawyers are called barristers. There may be a further
> >distinction. I sat in on a trial for fun while in London on business.
> >They had the wigs, robes and all. Very eloquent speaking. Not like our
> >US TV shows.
> >
> Barristers practice law before the bar -- that is, in court. Solicitors
> practice law, but do not appear in court. The distinction is peculiar
> to the UK. In the US, lawyers is lawyers.

Of course, the term "solicitor," by coincidence(?) applies, also, to the
"world's oldest profession." Anybody see any similarities there?

Ol' chap

I do believe I heard someone describe it that way to me and I forgot.
For those Yanks that would like to understand the Queen's language check
this out. http://www.hps.com/~tpg/ukdict/

Cheers,

Ross

Michael Houghton wrote:

> Howdy!
>
> In article >,
> Ross Richardson > wrote:
>
>>In the UK lawyers are called barristers. There may be a further
>>distinction. I sat in on a trial for fun while in London on business.
>>They had the wigs, robes and all. Very eloquent speaking. Not like our
>>US TV shows.
>>
>
> Barristers practice law before the bar -- that is, in court. Solicitors
> practice law, but do not appear in court. The distinction is peculiar
> to the UK. In the US, lawyers is lawyers.
>
> yours,
> Michael
>
>

For those who do not check it out, here are the definitions;

BARRISTER n. 1. A specialist trial lawyer, who may appear before the
higher courts, as opposed to your common garden-variety SOLICITOR, who
generally may not. BARRISTERS may not join a firm of other lawyers. They
must practice the law completely independently, but may be grouped
together to share office expenses such as telephones etc., however,
their practices may not overlap in any manner. These restrictions do not
apply to SOLICITORS.

BARRISTERS cannot tout for business and tradition has it that a
BARRISTER is not really employed at all. He offers his services as a
gesture, and if, in gratitude, you want to slip him a few SOVEREIGNS as
an honorarium, he has, even today, a pocket on the back of his gown into
which you may discreetly deposit the cash.

SOLICITOR n. 1. Your basic everyday lawyer who handles most any kind of
legal service like contracts, wills and represents you in lower courts.
However, if you get in serious trouble, you will need a BARRISTER.

Ross
KSWI

Ross Richardson wrote:

> In the UK lawyers are called barristers. There may be a further
> distinction. I sat in on a trial for fun while in London on business.
> They had the wigs, robes and all. Very eloquent speaking. Not like our
> US TV shows.

You have a bizarre idea of fun! :-)

I participated in a trial once many years ago as a juror. It lessened
my already low opinion of the American justice system.


Matt

Stefan wrote:

> Michael Houghton schrieb:
>
>> Barristers practice law before the bar -- that is, in court. Solicitors
>> practice law, but do not appear in court. The distinction is peculiar
>> to the UK. In the US, lawyers is lawyers.
>
>
> Actually, this distinction is not peculiar to the UK at all but exists
> in many countries.

But in the UK, it is peculiar. :-)


Matt

You probably want to avoid this technique.

http://www.fayettevillenc.com/article_ap?id=87256

Chris G. wrote:
> It was just a misconception I had until later in my training. I think
> it was probably because there are significant differences in the
> procedures (holding nose off vs, keep nose on the ground as much as
> possible), they're tested separately in the PTS, and I didn't really
> have a good practice strip for short/soft fields. My Instructor (aka my
> Dad) did a good job explaining the need to combine techniques, I just
> didn't get it until later on.


any-one want to give out the speed/time formulae as to finding the
length of the grass strip -before- you land on it...

"george" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Chris G. wrote:
>> It was just a misconception I had until later in my training. I think
>> it was probably because there are significant differences in the
>> procedures (holding nose off vs, keep nose on the ground as much as
>> possible), they're tested separately in the PTS, and I didn't really
>> have a good practice strip for short/soft fields. My Instructor (aka my
>> Dad) did a good job explaining the need to combine techniques, I just
>> didn't get it until later on.
>
>
> any-one want to give out the speed/time formulae as to finding the
> length of the grass strip -before- you land on it...
>

60Mph = about 90fps

1.5 X Mph = Fps

100mph = 150fps
10 second pass = 1500 feet
20 second pass = 3000 '

Al G

Al wrote:
> "george" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Chris G. wrote:
> >> It was just a misconception I had until later in my training. I think
> >> it was probably because there are significant differences in the
> >> procedures (holding nose off vs, keep nose on the ground as much as
> >> possible), they're tested separately in the PTS, and I didn't really
> >> have a good practice strip for short/soft fields. My Instructor (aka my
> >> Dad) did a good job explaining the need to combine techniques, I just
> >> didn't get it until later on.
> >
> >
> > any-one want to give out the speed/time formulae as to finding the
> > length of the grass strip -before- you land on it...
> >
>
> 60Mph = about 90fps
>
> 1.5 X Mph = Fps
>
> 100mph = 150fps
> 10 second pass = 1500 feet
> 20 second pass = 3000 '
>
Thank you kind sir

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:29:49 -0400, Skylune wrote:

> You probably want to avoid this technique.
>
> http://www.fayettevillenc.com/article_ap?id=87256

What a trashy rag for releasing what potentially could be the pilot's name
before the family was notified.


Greg