I have been following the "Grass Strip" thread and have a few comments:

I have a "high performance" Vintage Johnson Rocket (the hot rod of 1946)
and have based it on both grass and paved fields and have flown into and
out of grass fields ranging from "fantastic" to "I'd never go in there
again!"

I based at Frazier Lake (CA) for 8 years, where we would close the grass
during the wet season and land on the paved taxiway (really sporting
with a stiff crosswind). The grass was irrigated and kept well-manicured
and was easy on tires and was quite forgiving on sideslip angles during
crosswind rollout.

One of the finest strips I have ever landed on is Leeward (FL), where,
the only way you knew that you had landed was to notice that you were
slowing down. The roughest was Bob Lee (FL), which also has a lot of
dips and waves (a "Never again!" place).

The softest was another Florida grass strip a week after a hurricane
went through. It was WET and slowed us down quickly (using soft field
technique).

It took a fair amount of power to taxi, but we parked and did our
business. The only good thing about it was that it was 3500 feet long.

Takeoff was the maneuver I wondered about most, as my wheels were
sinking into the soil as I taxied (with a fair amount of power). I knew
that I could fly if I could get the nose to rotate and that I could
abort if not, due to the 3500 feet of "runway". I chose full flaps, to
facilitate lift and added full power and stick full back. Acceleration
was very sluggish, but eventually the nose rotated and we lifted off and
flew home.

Yesterday I witnessed a Baron pilot land nosewheel first, porpoise a
couple of times and eventually get control. Several of us there expected
to see the nosewheel fold and the Baron slide down the runway. Talk
about poor technique!

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> I have been following the "Grass Strip" thread and have a few comments:
>
> I have a "high performance" Vintage Johnson Rocket (the hot rod of 1946)
> and have based it on both grass and paved fields and have flown into and
> out of grass fields ranging from "fantastic" to "I'd never go in there
> again!"
>
> I based at Frazier Lake (CA) for 8 years, where we would close the grass
> during the wet season and land on the paved taxiway (really sporting
> with a stiff crosswind). The grass was irrigated and kept well-manicured
> and was easy on tires and was quite forgiving on sideslip angles during
> crosswind rollout.
>
> One of the finest strips I have ever landed on is Leeward (FL), where,
> the only way you knew that you had landed was to notice that you were
> slowing down. The roughest was Bob Lee (FL), which also has a lot of
> dips and waves (a "Never again!" place).
>
> The softest was another Florida grass strip a week after a hurricane
> went through. It was WET and slowed us down quickly (using soft field
> technique).
>
> It took a fair amount of power to taxi, but we parked and did our
> business. The only good thing about it was that it was 3500 feet long.
>
> Takeoff was the maneuver I wondered about most, as my wheels were
> sinking into the soil as I taxied (with a fair amount of power). I knew
> that I could fly if I could get the nose to rotate and that I could
> abort if not, due to the 3500 feet of "runway". I chose full flaps, to
> facilitate lift and added full power and stick full back. Acceleration
> was very sluggish, but eventually the nose rotated and we lifted off and
> flew home.
>
> Yesterday I witnessed a Baron pilot land nosewheel first, porpoise a
> couple of times and eventually get control. Several of us there expected
> to see the nosewheel fold and the Baron slide down the runway. Talk
> about poor technique!

Your accounts got me to wondering ... how many of you all have actually
seen an airplane nose-over on a grass strip? I've been flying since
1978 at two airports that had grass strips (one had only grass until
just last year). I've NEVER seen an incident on a grass strip period,
let alone one that occurred because of failure to use short-field
technique. I haven't tried to search the NTSB archives yet. I'm sure
they have some accounts, but it certainly isn't the type of crash that
I've either heard or read about with any frequency.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
<<<snip>>>
>>
>> Yesterday I witnessed a Baron pilot land nosewheel first, porpoise a
>> couple of times and eventually get control. Several of us there expected
>> to see the nosewheel fold and the Baron slide down the runway. Talk about
>> poor technique!
>
> Your accounts got me to wondering ... how many of you all have actually
> seen an airplane nose-over on a grass strip? I've been flying since 1978
> at two airports that had grass strips (one had only grass until just last
> year). I've NEVER seen an incident on a grass strip period, let alone one
> that occurred because of failure to use short-field technique. I haven't
> tried to search the NTSB archives yet. I'm sure they have some accounts,
> but it certainly isn't the type of crash that I've either heard or read
> about with any frequency.
>
>
> Matt

Me. There is a fly-in at Thomasville, GA every fall. It is a favorite of
the folks who fly antiques. About 10 years ago I was there and had the
misfortune of watching a vintage biplane go end over end during a botched
landing. I didn't see the beginning of the accident, but something drew my
eye to the aircraft right as the nose went into the ground. No idea whether
the accident was grass strip related, a mechanical failue (locked brakes?),
or simple pilot error. I don't remember the field conditions being anything
special on that day.

KB

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Your accounts got me to wondering ... how many of you all have actually
> seen an airplane nose-over on a grass strip?
> Matt

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X07283&key=1

I responded to this one back in my days as a vollie firefighter.. its
the only one I've ever personally seen.. and it was a TRUE soft field on
that day, it had been raining for a few days and the ground when
saturated has the consistency of gumbo clay.

Dave

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> <<<snip>>>
>
>>>Yesterday I witnessed a Baron pilot land nosewheel first, porpoise a
>>>couple of times and eventually get control. Several of us there expected
>>>to see the nosewheel fold and the Baron slide down the runway. Talk about
>>>poor technique!
>>
>>Your accounts got me to wondering ... how many of you all have actually
>>seen an airplane nose-over on a grass strip? I've been flying since 1978
>>at two airports that had grass strips (one had only grass until just last
>>year). I've NEVER seen an incident on a grass strip period, let alone one
>>that occurred because of failure to use short-field technique. I haven't
>>tried to search the NTSB archives yet. I'm sure they have some accounts,
>>but it certainly isn't the type of crash that I've either heard or read
>>about with any frequency.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Me. There is a fly-in at Thomasville, GA every fall. It is a favorite of
> the folks who fly antiques. About 10 years ago I was there and had the
> misfortune of watching a vintage biplane go end over end during a botched
> landing. I didn't see the beginning of the accident, but something drew my
> eye to the aircraft right as the nose went into the ground. No idea whether
> the accident was grass strip related, a mechanical failue (locked brakes?),
> or simple pilot error. I don't remember the field conditions being anything
> special on that day.

I'm mainly interested in those directly attributed to the field being
grass, but not a soft field, and having the landing accident be due to
not using a soft-field technique on a "hard" grass field.

I searched the NTSB archives on the keywords grass and strip and got 500
or so hits, but in looking at a few, I couldn't find anything in this
category. Lots of stupid stuff, but not directly grass related. I
think one involved an SR-22 (which we had an extensive thread about
recenty) that landed on wet grass, skidded, and then attempted a
take-off and hit trees. However, it then mentioned that the person had
touched down with only 1200' left on a 2700' or so long strip. I'd
hardly blame such an accident on the grass. :-)

Matt

Dave S wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Your accounts got me to wondering ... how many of you all have
>> actually seen an airplane nose-over on a grass strip? Matt
>
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X07283&key=1
>
> I responded to this one back in my days as a vollie firefighter.. its
> the only one I've ever personally seen.. and it was a TRUE soft field on
> that day, it had been raining for a few days and the ground when
> saturated has the consistency of gumbo clay.

Ouch.

Yes, I've no doubt that failing to use soft field technigue on a soft
field is asking for trouble. I was thinking about our topic though of
failing to use soft field technique solely because the strip was grass,
not because it really was soft. I've never suggested that a soft field
should be landed on with anything other than your very best soft field
technique.

I suspect the NTSB has other similar reports if I can just find the
right list of keywords to ferret them out.

Matt

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
[...]

> >
> > Yesterday I witnessed a Baron pilot land nosewheel first, porpoise a
> > couple of times and eventually get control. Several of us there expected
> > to see the nosewheel fold and the Baron slide down the runway. Talk
> > about poor technique!
>
> Your accounts got me to wondering ... how many of you all have actually
> seen an airplane nose-over on a grass strip? I've been flying since
> 1978 at two airports that had grass strips (one had only grass until
> just last year). I've NEVER seen an incident on a grass strip period,
> let alone one that occurred because of failure to use short-field
> technique. [...]

I've seen a grass strip nose-over -- in fact, it occured at Frazier
Lake, the grass strip Orval mentioned early in his post (about the only
conveniently-located trustworthy grass strip around here in the Bay
Area). Not sure what caused it, but I saw it happen from the air, which
was quite a sobering sight, despite the fact that the plane didn't look
too damaged from 2000' up. It doesn't appear to have been put into the
NTSB database, so I guess it was considered a fairly minor incident.

Hamish

Matt,

> how many of you all have actually
> seen an airplane nose-over on a grass strip?
>

I have. Cessna 172. Truly lousy landing. If anything, the nose wheel
would have folded sooner on pavement.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

> I think one involved an SR-22 (which we had an extensive thread about recenty) that landed on wet grass, skidded, and then attempted a take-off and hit trees. However, it then mentioned that the person had touched down with only 1200' left on a 2700' or so long strip. I'd hardly blame such an accident on the grass. :-)

Had it been concrete, would the skid had occured? Would braking action
been sufficient to stop in the remaning runway? These are some of the
differences that might be attributable to grass.

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

In article
>,
Hamish Reid > wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> [...]
>
> > >
> > > Yesterday I witnessed a Baron pilot land nosewheel first, porpoise a
> > > couple of times and eventually get control. Several of us there expected
> > > to see the nosewheel fold and the Baron slide down the runway. Talk
> > > about poor technique!
> >
> > Your accounts got me to wondering ... how many of you all have actually
> > seen an airplane nose-over on a grass strip? I've been flying since
> > 1978 at two airports that had grass strips (one had only grass until
> > just last year). I've NEVER seen an incident on a grass strip period,
> > let alone one that occurred because of failure to use short-field
> > technique. [...]
>
> I've seen a grass strip nose-over -- in fact, it occured at Frazier
> Lake, the grass strip Orval mentioned early in his post (about the only
> conveniently-located trustworthy grass strip around here in the Bay
> Area). Not sure what caused it, but I saw it happen from the air, which
> was quite a sobering sight, despite the fact that the plane didn't look
> too damaged from 2000' up. It doesn't appear to have been put into the
> NTSB database, so I guess it was considered a fairly minor incident.
>
> Hamish

We used to "X" out the runway during winter (rainy season) at Frazier
Lake. This did not stop some boneheads from attempting to use the sod,
however. I can remember a number of times that some nonmember left
furrows in the runway. I don't recall, however, very many noseovers,
however.

My extreme soft field experience was at Eustis, FL (X55), Mid-Florida
Airport. I think that I left some furrows there! It was WET!

Jose wrote:
>> I think one involved an SR-22 (which we had an extensive thread about
>> recenty) that landed on wet grass, skidded, and then attempted a
>> take-off and hit trees. However, it then mentioned that the person
>> had touched down with only 1200' left on a 2700' or so long strip.
>> I'd hardly blame such an accident on the grass. :-)
>
>
> Had it been concrete, would the skid had occured? Would braking action
> been sufficient to stop in the remaning runway? These are some of the
> differences that might be attributable to grass.

Hard to say. Pilots who land that long are also typically landing
pretty hot. Anyone's guess if he'd have gotten stopped on concrete.
Certainly, the braking action is better on concrete than even the best
grass strip, although I've not found stopping on grass to ever be a
problem. If you land where you are supposed to, the additional drag
from grass will stop you just fine with no need for braking. Then
again, I almost never use the brakes when landing in any event. Only if
at a controlled field and the controller asks me to make the first
turn-off. The biggest airplane I've flown in the 182 and I could land
and stop without brakes in less than 2,000' in calm conditions and much
less than that with any significant headwind. I've only landed on one
runway where I felt I had to use significant braking (Marlboro, MA) and
even then, I probably used a lot more than I needed as I got stopped
with a good 500' of runway left. But the visual picture on final at
that airport was simply freaky the first time in. I guess I should have
taken my CFI along. :-)


Matt

In article >,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Hamish Reid > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >
> > > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > >
> > > > Yesterday I witnessed a Baron pilot land nosewheel first, porpoise a
> > > > couple of times and eventually get control. Several of us there
> > > > expected
> > > > to see the nosewheel fold and the Baron slide down the runway. Talk
> > > > about poor technique!
> > >
> > > Your accounts got me to wondering ... how many of you all have actually
> > > seen an airplane nose-over on a grass strip? I've been flying since
> > > 1978 at two airports that had grass strips (one had only grass until
> > > just last year). I've NEVER seen an incident on a grass strip period,
> > > let alone one that occurred because of failure to use short-field
> > > technique. [...]
> >
> > I've seen a grass strip nose-over -- in fact, it occured at Frazier
> > Lake, the grass strip Orval mentioned early in his post (about the only
> > conveniently-located trustworthy grass strip around here in the Bay
> > Area). Not sure what caused it, but I saw it happen from the air, which
> > was quite a sobering sight, despite the fact that the plane didn't look
> > too damaged from 2000' up. It doesn't appear to have been put into the
> > NTSB database, so I guess it was considered a fairly minor incident.
> >
> > Hamish
>
> We used to "X" out the runway during winter (rainy season) at Frazier
> Lake. This did not stop some boneheads from attempting to use the sod,
> however. I can remember a number of times that some nonmember left
> furrows in the runway. I don't recall, however, very many noseovers,
> however.

I always used to wonder if anyone ever landed in the seaplane "ditch"
there by mistake... under certain conditions it certainly looked like a
runway :-).

Hamish

In article
>,
Hamish Reid > wrote:

> In article >,
> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> >
> > We used to "X" out the runway during winter (rainy season) at Frazier
> > Lake. This did not stop some boneheads from attempting to use the sod,
> > however. I can remember a number of times that some nonmember left
> > furrows in the runway. I don't recall, however, very many noseovers,
> > however.
>
> I always used to wonder if anyone ever landed in the seaplane "ditch"
> there by mistake... under certain conditions it certainly looked like a
> runway :-).

When I was there we had a pool going as to when somebody would try that!
On a grey day, the seaplane lane looked like a wet concrete runway --
except for the ducks that lived there!

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Dave S wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Your accounts got me to wondering ... how many of you all have
>>> actually seen an airplane nose-over on a grass strip? Matt
>>
>>

For what its worth, I am actually in agreement with you.. in that simply
being a turf strip does not a soft field make. My first solo flight and
quite a few initial flight training hours were done on grass. On a dry,
well maintained field, its a non-event.. and more forgiving than a paved
strip.

Dave

Dave S wrote:

> For what its worth, I am actually in agreement with you.. in that simply
> being a turf strip does not a soft field make. My first solo flight and
> quite a few initial flight training hours were done on grass. On a dry,
> well maintained field, its a non-event.. and more forgiving than a paved
> strip.
>
> Dave

The local climate and soil conditions, as well as the age of
the established sod, has much to do with the firmness of a grass strip.
Poor drainage and really tight clay soils can be soft most of the time
unless it's dry country. Every grass strip is different. We use a
number of them for training, and we know what to expect at various
times of the year. Springtime, with frost coming out of the ground, is
a good time to leave them alone.
I think more accidents involve taking off from a grass strip by
pilots who are used to pavement. The takeoff roll can be MUCH longer
due to drag of the grass (depending on height, density, type and
moisture content of the grass) and the softness of the soil, and the
airplane is often slid off the end of the runway when the abort comes
too late, or staggers into the air and crashes moments later.

Dan

Dylan Smith wrote:

> A firm grass runway for a tailwheel plane is much safer than paved -
> it's a lot more forgiving of slight crab angles on touchdown.

And the drag of the grass helps *a lot* to keep the tail where it belongs.

Stefan

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> Your accounts got me to wondering ... how many of you all have actually
> seen an airplane nose-over on a grass strip? I've been flying since 1978
> at two airports that had grass strips (one had only grass until just last
> year). I've NEVER seen an incident on a grass strip period, let alone one
> that occurred because of failure to use short-field technique. I haven't
> tried to search the NTSB archives yet. I'm sure they have some accounts,
> but it certainly isn't the type of crash that I've either heard or read
> about with any frequency.
>
>
> Matt

I'm with you. I saw one taxi into a drainage ditch - threatened to sue, but
it was a private strip and he did not have permission to land (years ago,
nowdays it would be feasible). One overshot the field and nosed over when he
hit the cattle fence at the end. Saw another nimrod taxi into a hanger, but
that had nothing to do with the grass.

Todd

I agree with you. I flew PT-19's, AT-6's, P-40's. P-51's, 150's 180's
and a few other tail wheel birds (Cub's, Air Knocker's,
Luscombe's,Rearwin JR, etc.). Three pointed ALL OF THEM on grass and
hard surface with no problems.

Have seen a number of so called experts wheel a bird in and loose it.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````

On 19 Jun 2006 08:59:01 -0500, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote:

>Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>Your accounts got me to wondering ... how many of you all have actually
>>seen an airplane nose-over on a grass strip?
>
>I've seen this. The field was definitely soft - extremely
>soft. A week of spring thaw and rain during the week
>leaving mud under the grass, then an overnight freeze
>producing a hard crust allowing morning takeoffs on the
>weekend. Thawing during the day left a weak crust, plane
>noses over as wheels sink through into the muck. Fire
>trucks ran out and sank through too.
>
>This was not a failure to use soft field technique. Nothing
>would have prevented this other than using the hard runway
>or landing a couple hours earlier. I've got more landings
>on grass than hard surface - mostly tailwheel. I don't
>wheel land on grass, (I seldom wheel land on hard either)
>and certainly would not do it on a grass runway I don't know
>well. I use soft field technique if it's soft. I don't
>stop the taxi if the grass is getting long, or at the edge
>of a bump to the hard surface, but a normal grass runway
>needs no special technique.

In article >,
"birdog" > wrote:

> I'm with you. I saw one taxi into a drainage ditch - threatened to sue, but
> it was a private strip and he did not have permission to land (years ago,
> nowdays it would be feasible). One overshot the field and nosed over when he
> hit the cattle fence at the end. Saw another nimrod taxi into a hanger, but
> that had nothing to do with the grass.

If it is on the Sectional and has an R in a circle, one had better have
permission. If it is not on the Sectional, again, you had better have
permission.

In article >,
T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:

> john smith > wrote:
>
> >If it is on the Sectional and has an R in a circle, one had better have
> >permission. If it is not on the Sectional, again, you had better have
> >permission.
>
> I've landed at lots of those "R in a circle" airports, never
> with permission (unless it was the second time), and always
> got a nice reception. Of course, I always landed without an
> engine, and only because it was land there or land in a
> farmer's field.

There are examples in US case law where aircraft owners who have landed
at private airfields without permission have had to pay large sums of
money to the property owner to recover their aircraft, disassemble it
and truck it out.

Dylan Smith wrote:

> The other instructor said, "First solo? Off a GRASS runway? Is it
> SAFE!?" with a tone of isn't-that-irresponsible...
>
> A firm grass runway for a tailwheel plane is much safer than paved -
> it's a lot more forgiving of slight crab angles on touchdown.

Yes, methinks we need to give our instructors better instruction! :-)

Matt

john smith wrote:

> In article >,
> T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:
>
>
>>john smith > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If it is on the Sectional and has an R in a circle, one had better have
>>>permission. If it is not on the Sectional, again, you had better have
>>>permission.
>>
>>I've landed at lots of those "R in a circle" airports, never
>>with permission (unless it was the second time), and always
>>got a nice reception. Of course, I always landed without an
>>engine, and only because it was land there or land in a
>>farmer's field.
>
>
> There are examples in US case law where aircraft owners who have landed
> at private airfields without permission have had to pay large sums of
> money to the property owner to recover their aircraft, disassemble it
> and truck it out.

Isn't that how they normally remove gliders? :-)

Matt

> john smith wrote:
> > There are examples in US case law where aircraft owners who have landed
> > at private airfields without permission have had to pay large sums of
> > money to the property owner to recover their aircraft, disassemble it
> > and truck it out.

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Isn't that how they normally remove gliders? :-)

Depends. If the tow plane can come in and tow them back up and out,
that's the preferred way (cost to the glider pilot? significant); if
their location is such that the tow plane cannot tow them back out, a
crew disassembles the glider and trailers it out (cost to the glider
pilot? an arm and a leg). I've never heard of paying "large sums of
money to the property owner" to recover the glider ... other than
reimbursing for damage caused during the landing. In all the off-field
landing stories I've heard, property owners are generally pretty nice,
and recovery crews have been known to find the pilot and the farmer
sharing a beer.

> wrote in message
...
>> john smith wrote:
>> > There are examples in US case law where aircraft owners who have landed
>> > at private airfields without permission have had to pay large sums of
>> > money to the property owner to recover their aircraft, disassemble it
>> > and truck it out.
>
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Isn't that how they normally remove gliders? :-)
>
> Depends. If the tow plane can come in and tow them back up and out,
> that's the preferred way (cost to the glider pilot? significant)

Not really, if the distance is not great.

; if
> their location is such that the tow plane cannot tow them back out, a
> crew disassembles the glider and trailers it out (cost to the glider
> pilot? an arm and a leg).

No, usually a couple of the pilots friends hook up the trailer and go out
and get him/her. Never know the next time it could be, and probably will
be, one of them.

I've never heard of paying "large sums of
> money to the property owner" to recover the glider ... other than
> reimbursing for damage caused during the landing. In all the off-field
> landing stories I've heard, property owners are generally pretty nice,
> and recovery crews have been known to find the pilot and the farmer
> sharing a beer.

> > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >> Isn't that how they normally remove gliders? :-)

XMnushaL8y:
> > Depends. If the tow plane can come in and tow them back up and out,
> > that's the preferred way (cost to the glider pilot? significant)

"Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> Not really, if the distance is not great.

Well, maybe "significant" is relative. Most don't land out if they
haven't ventured too far in the first place.

> > if their location is such that the tow plane cannot tow them back out, a
> > crew disassembles the glider and trailers it out (cost to the glider
> > pilot? an arm and a leg).
>
> No, usually a couple of the pilots friends hook up the trailer and go out
> and get him/her. Never know the next time it could be, and probably will
> be, one of them.

Depends where you fly and who owns the glider. The pilot doesn't always
own the glider, the pilot doesn't always bring all his friends every
time he flies (sometimes it's just the crew at the gliderport), the
gliderport doesn't close up at night until everyone is back, and the
business generally wants to handle retrieval of their own gliders if
disassembly and trailering is required.

We've had several club members damage aircraft on grass. In all cases, the
damage occurred during and unexpected pavement-to-grass transition. :-(

Dylan Smith wrote:

>
> The other instructor said, "First solo? Off a GRASS runway? Is it
> SAFE!?" with a tone of isn't-that-irresponsible...
>
> A firm grass runway for a tailwheel plane is much safer than paved -
> it's a lot more forgiving of slight crab angles on touchdown.
>

AMEN Dylan...

Don Cooper solo'd me at Wolfe.. a field he knew well.. Again.. a well
maintained grass runway is a NON event..

To all the other naysayers and nit pickers, its not like im advocating
setting down in a pasture dodging cows and ant-hills, or on a beach.. or
on an unmaintained back-country gravel road.. I'm talking about a well
constructed and maintained grass runway at a FAA registered airport..

It's actually kind of sad, dylan, the instructor's comments that you
have on tape... He was likely the latest in a generation of flight
instructors who have never operated off grass, trained by someone who
had never flown off of grass, and likely never in a tailwheel either.

It's a shame.
Dave

Dave S wrote:

> Again.. a well
> maintained grass runway is a NON event..

glad to read this :-) I first used a paved runway after I
got my private certificate (thought it was actually trickier
than a grass field); why all the fuss?

--Sylvain

Dave S wrote:

> To all the other naysayers and nit pickers, its not like im advocating
> setting down in a pasture dodging cows and ant-hills, or on a beach.. or
> on an unmaintained back-country gravel road.. I'm talking about a well
> constructed and maintained grass runway at a FAA registered airport..
>
> It's actually kind of sad, dylan, the instructor's comments that you
> have on tape... He was likely the latest in a generation of flight
> instructors who have never operated off grass, trained by someone who
> had never flown off of grass, and likely never in a tailwheel either.
>
> It's a shame.
> Dave

Agreed. I've flown with a few of these "new" instructors and it is
really sad how little they really know about the full range of flying.

I flew once circuit years ago in a Tomahawk with a young CFI who had
heard too many Traumahawk stories. He had me not rotate until 70 knots
and maintain 90 all the way around the pattern until nearly touchdown.
He was absolutely paranoid about stalling it.

After one circuit I politely told him that his style wasn't working for
me and we called it a day.

Matt

schrieb:

> Depends where you fly and who owns the glider. The pilot doesn't always
> own the glider, the pilot doesn't always bring all his friends every
> time he flies (sometimes it's just the crew at the gliderport), the
> gliderport doesn't close up at night until everyone is back, and the
> business generally wants to handle retrieval of their own gliders if
> disassembly and trailering is required.

Where I live and fly, glider clubs work that way: I retrieve you, and
you retrieve me, and nobody leaves until it's clear that everybody has
landed safely. But maybe such things work differently in the USA.

Stefan

In article et>,
Dave S > wrote:

> Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > The other instructor said, "First solo? Off a GRASS runway? Is it
> > SAFE!?" with a tone of isn't-that-irresponsible...
> >
> > A firm grass runway for a tailwheel plane is much safer than paved -
> > it's a lot more forgiving of slight crab angles on touchdown.
> >
>
> AMEN Dylan...
>
> Don Cooper solo'd me at Wolfe.. a field he knew well.. Again.. a well
> maintained grass runway is a NON event..
>
> To all the other naysayers and nit pickers, its not like im advocating
> setting down in a pasture dodging cows and ant-hills, or on a beach.. or
> on an unmaintained back-country gravel road.. I'm talking about a well
> constructed and maintained grass runway at a FAA registered airport..
>
> It's actually kind of sad, dylan, the instructor's comments that you
> have on tape... He was likely the latest in a generation of flight
> instructors who have never operated off grass, trained by someone who
> had never flown off of grass, and likely never in a tailwheel either.
>
> It's a shame.
> Dave

He is probably also one of those flight instructors that teach long,
drawn-out patterns, "stabilized approaches" (under power, of course) and
heads buried in the cockpit.

Stefan wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> > A firm grass runway for a tailwheel plane is much safer than paved -
> > it's a lot more forgiving of slight crab angles on touchdown.
>
> And the drag of the grass helps *a lot* to keep the tail where it belongs.
>
Imagine the furore if you were flying a 'tailskid' off their perfect
surface :-)
And a grass Field/paddock is good to cut the crosswind component way
back to almost nothing