My club recently had an airplane damaged in an overrun on a 2200 foot
runway. This is the third such incident in the last 5 or so years
(two of which resulted in serious aircraft damage, but fortunately no
injuries). We're considering tightening up our rules about short
runways. One possibility would be to outlaw landings on anything
under 2500 feet unless you've got a commercial certificate.

We're based at HPN, where the short runway is 4500 feet. This doesn't
help keep one's short-field landing skills sharp.

I'd be interested to know what sorts of rules other clubs (or FBO's
you rent from) have about this sort of stuff.

In a previous article, (Roy Smith) said:
>I'd be interested to know what sorts of rules other clubs (or FBO's
>you rent from) have about this sort of stuff.

Our club doesn't have any such rule other than "don't land on something
that you or the plane isn't capable of landing on". We allow turf
landings too, which the local FBOs don't.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
This is your Air Force: http://www.af.mil/ This is your Air Force on drugs:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/02/mistaken.bombing/index.html
Any questions?

In article >, (Roy Smith) wrote:

> I'd be interested to know what sorts of rules other clubs (or FBO's
> you rent from) have about this sort of stuff.

One FBO here at KBED had a rule about no landings on runways
shorter than 2500. However, they would wave that on a case-by-case
basis. I don't know their current rule.

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

(Roy Smith) wrote in :

> My club recently had an airplane damaged in an overrun on a 2200 foot
> runway. This is the third such incident in the last 5 or so years
> (two of which resulted in serious aircraft damage, but fortunately no
> injuries). We're considering tightening up our rules about short
> runways. One possibility would be to outlaw landings on anything
> under 2500 feet unless you've got a commercial certificate.
>
> We're based at HPN, where the short runway is 4500 feet. This doesn't
> help keep one's short-field landing skills sharp.
>
> I'd be interested to know what sorts of rules other clubs (or FBO's
> you rent from) have about this sort of stuff.

I've found no rhyme or reason to many of the rules regarding where one
can land. About 5 years ago, I looked at all the clubs at xxx (omitted so
as not to subject them to embarassment). Every club at that time had a
rule restricting landings to paved runways 3,000' or longer. You should
have seen the strange look I got when I asked where I was expected to
return the aircraft at the end of my flight! (The runway at xxx, a towered
field, is 2,443' x 70'.)

Out of curiousity, I just checked two clubs at xxx which have their
rules online. One didn't exist 5 years ago, and the other has eliminated
the 3,000' paved runway requirement.

The newer club prohibits operations at unimproved runways unless with
a CFI at a specified nearby airport and at high altitude airports (above
3,000' MSL) unless the pilot has a club checkout or previous logbook
experience. No other restrictions.

The other club I checked only prohibits landings on dirt, sod, or
gravel runways - or at any airport that is not listed in the AF/D unless
prior approval is given by the club manager or chief pilot. They also
prohibit touch & goes by primary students if the runway is less than 4,000'
and for anyone in a retract, high performance, or turbocharged aircraft. A
club mountain flying checkout is required for operations at an airport
higher than 2,000' MSL or over mountanous terrain over 8'000' MSL.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

In article >,
Marty Shapiro > wrote:
> The other club I checked only prohibits landings on dirt, sod, or
>gravel runways - or at any airport that is not listed in the AF/D unless
>prior approval is given by the club manager or chief pilot. They also
>prohibit touch & goes by primary students if the runway is less than 4,000'
>and for anyone in a retract, high performance, or turbocharged aircraft. A
>club mountain flying checkout is required for operations at an airport
>higher than 2,000' MSL or over mountanous terrain over 8'000' MSL.

If this is the club I'm thinking of, they're also know for having
rules for just about everything. They probably don't have a generic
runway requirement due to the fact that they are based out of
airports with ~2500ft runways.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

(John Clear) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Marty Shapiro > wrote:
>> The other club I checked only prohibits landings on dirt,
>> sod, or
>>gravel runways - or at any airport that is not listed in the AF/D
>>unless prior approval is given by the club manager or chief pilot.
>>They also prohibit touch & goes by primary students if the runway is
>>less than 4,000' and for anyone in a retract, high performance, or
>>turbocharged aircraft. A club mountain flying checkout is required for
>>operations at an airport higher than 2,000' MSL or over mountanous
>>terrain over 8'000' MSL.
>
> If this is the club I'm thinking of, they're also know for having
> rules for just about everything. They probably don't have a generic
> runway requirement due to the fact that they are based out of
> airports with ~2500ft runways.
>
> John

Yep, that's the club. At least they have removed the 3,000'
restriction. One of the clubs quickly recovered when I asked where to
return the aircraft and said the restriction only applied to non-towered
fields. How or why the presence of a control tower should make a
difference, I don't know.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

John Clear wrote:

> If this is the club I'm thinking of, they're also know for having
> rules for just about everything.

Looks an awful lot like a club I know which operates from a
2443 x 70 ft runway :-) I am pretty sure -- but then I left quite
a while ago for saner pastures -- they have a checkout
procedure -- and currency requirements -- for the use of the
bathroom... the funny thing though is that all these rules don't
seem to do much good to their safety record, but I digress.

--Sylvain

Marty Shapiro > wrote:
> Yep, that's the club. At least they have removed the 3,000'
>restriction. One of the clubs quickly recovered when I asked where to
>return the aircraft and said the restriction only applied to non-towered
>fields. How or why the presence of a control tower should make a
>difference, I don't know.

The tower will make some effort to see that you land into the wind.
Downwind landings and short runways make a bad combination.

In article >, Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>The tower will make some effort to see that you land into the wind.

The tower will make some effort, but sometimes it takes awhile for
them to spin things around, especially when the pattern is busy.

>Downwind landings and short runways make a bad combination.

I was flying the pattern at Palo Alto (PAO) one day when the winds
were favoring 12, and then changed to a crosswind and then a ~5kt
tailwind. There was the usual 10+ planes in the pattern. I was
told I was going to be the last to land on 12 before they spun the
pattern around for 30. Unfortunately, the wind was picking up,
and I needed the runway to be about 10ft longer. Fortunately, the
plane wasn't damaged by the trip into the weeds. A few minutes later
the wind was reported as 10kts pretty much straight down the runway.
The runway at PAO is 13/31 now, so this happened quite a while ago.

It was quite eye opening to sit and calculate the landing roll with
a 10kt tailwind. It doesn't sound like much, but it will basically
double the distance needed.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

Roy Smith wrote:
> Marty Shapiro > wrote:
>> Yep, that's the club. At least they have removed the 3,000'
>> restriction. One of the clubs quickly recovered when I asked where to
>> return the aircraft and said the restriction only applied to non-towered
>> fields. How or why the presence of a control tower should make a
>> difference, I don't know.
>
> The tower will make some effort to see that you land into the wind.
> Downwind landings and short runways make a bad combination.
>
>
Gee never known a tower to accept that responsiblity. As a matter
of fact I've had a few try to land me downwind. At least at an
uncontrolled field I don't even have to ask to take the preferred
runway.

(Roy Smith) wrote in :

> Marty Shapiro > wrote:
>> Yep, that's the club. At least they have removed the 3,000'
>>restriction. One of the clubs quickly recovered when I asked where to
>>return the aircraft and said the restriction only applied to non-towered
>>fields. How or why the presence of a control tower should make a
>>difference, I don't know.
>
> The tower will make some effort to see that you land into the wind.
> Downwind landings and short runways make a bad combination.
>
>

Don't bet on it. I've been cleared for a downwind landing landing
many times. When the aircraft/runway/wind will permit a safe downwind
landing, I take it, otherwise I reply "unable" and insist on the other
direction.

We have a regional flow pattern and the winds at SFO pretty much
dictate the direction at all the towered airports around the bay (OAK, SQL,
PAO, NUQ, HWD, SJC, RHV). To turn the flow around, ATC coordinates with all
8 airports. (Slides 30 & 31 in the power point presentation available at
http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/workshop/atc_overview_nn.ppt show the two traffic
flow patterns for the 3 main airports (SFO, OAK, SJC) in the San Francisco
Bay Area). There are times when the winds at SFO will be opposite those at
SJC.

I do agree that downwind landings and short runways are a bad
combination, but having a control tower does NOT guarantee you won't be
cleared for one.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

(Roy Smith) writes:

>One possibility would be to outlaw landings on anything
>under 2500 feet unless you've got a commercial certificate.

What happens if someone (attempts to) land on a strip shorter than 2500
and botches it? How is it different with the rule in places than the
way it is now? Will insurance go after the pilot in a different manner?

What's next? "Don't fly near thunderstorms"? At some point I think
pilots need to be trusted to do the right thing. Sure, sometimes
they'll still botch it.

--kyler

In article >,
Sylvain > wrote:

> John Clear wrote:
>
> > If this is the club I'm thinking of, they're also know for having
> > rules for just about everything.
>
> Looks an awful lot like a club I know which operates from a
> 2443 x 70 ft runway :-) I am pretty sure -- but then I left quite
> a while ago for saner pastures -- they have a checkout
> procedure -- and currency requirements -- for the use of the
> bathroom... the funny thing though is that all these rules don't
> seem to do much good to their safety record, but I digress.
>
> --Sylvain

It also sounds like a club that had a "spot the maintenance flaws"
contest one day, several years ago. They rigged a Cessna 152 with about
20 deliberate maintenance flaws and conducted a test for their members
to spot the flaws on a preflight.

A good friend of mine, who instructed there, and had had a set of major
problems with a homebuilt he had bought, entered the contest and
proceeded to find not only all the flaws on the contest list, but
numerous "extra credit" flaws not on the list.

Needless to say, the maintenance chief received a major "wirebrushing"
as a result.

Sylvain,

> Looks an awful lot like a club I know which operates from a
> 2443 x 70 ft runway :-)
>

Looks an awful lot like a club I tried to rent from as a walk-in. I was
lucky no one got a heart attack when I asked. They were a little too
German about this whole club thing for my taste ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

John,

> I was flying the pattern at Palo Alto (PAO)
>

Wonder why you just happen mention THAT airport ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> My club recently had an airplane damaged in an overrun on a 2200 foot
> runway. This is the third such incident in the last 5 or so years
> (two of which resulted in serious aircraft damage, but fortunately no
> injuries). We're considering tightening up our rules about short
> runways. One possibility would be to outlaw landings on anything
> under 2500 feet unless you've got a commercial certificate.

One AC I know of had both a length and width restriction, 2500 X 50 minimum.
This came about after a botched landing on a 2700 X 30 paved strip.
I've always considered narrow more of a challenge than short.

In article >,
"John Kunkel" > wrote:

> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > My club recently had an airplane damaged in an overrun on a 2200 foot
> > runway. This is the third such incident in the last 5 or so years
> > (two of which resulted in serious aircraft damage, but fortunately no
> > injuries). We're considering tightening up our rules about short
> > runways. One possibility would be to outlaw landings on anything
> > under 2500 feet unless you've got a commercial certificate.
>
> One AC I know of had both a length and width restriction, 2500 X 50 minimum.
> This came about after a botched landing on a 2700 X 30 paved strip.
> I've always considered narrow more of a challenge than short.

Indeed! When I based at Frazier Lake, we would close the 2500X150 grass
runway in the winter, when it was wet and take off and land on the 30'
wide paved taxiway. All was fine, if the wind was down the runway, but
it got sporting when we had a significnt crosswind (about 40% of thee
time).

Michael wrote:

> How exactly does a commercial certificate help? In my experience,
> commercial pilots are NOT better pilots than private pilots with the
> same number of hours.

well, it could be argued that someone who worked towards a commercial
ticket has had a lot more recurrent training -- and demonstrated a greater
interest in improving his/her knowledge and skills -- than someone who
spent the same number of hours making holes in the sky... the number
of hours doesn't tell the whole story either.

but seriously, one could also wonder how someone who cannot land a small
aircraft -- I presume that's what we are talking about -- on a 2000'
runway managed to get a private certificate in the first place...

I am not really sure how a club/FBO could improve their safety records
via just imposing more arbitrary rules that are a pain in the neck to
the majority of pilots who would be doing just fine without them;
there are 'problem pilots' out there -- I can think of one guy
hanging around on my local field who managed to run out of fuel in
one incident, do a gear up landing in another, and who knows what
else -- and we kind of all know who they are; not much an issue of
number of hours or ratings as you point out, but of attitude; not
even sure recurrent training would do the trick either...

--Sylvain

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> It also sounds like a club that had a "spot the maintenance flaws"
> contest one day, several years ago. They rigged a Cessna 152 with about
> 20 deliberate maintenance flaws and conducted a test for their members
> to spot the flaws on a preflight.

hey, that's actually a great idea, though one should be *really*
careful in making sure all the flaws introduced for the contest are
removed at the end of the day :-)

Another way to learn more about preflight check: the mechanics
who does the maintenance of our CAP aircraft gave us a walk around
of said aircraft one evening, what he looks for when he -- a
mechanics -- does a preflight, etc. that was also most educational.

Too bad that the only interaction most pilots -- I am talking renters
here, I presume that owners would be more involved -- have with the
nice folks who maintain our aircraft is via the squawk list...

--Sylvain

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
*snip*

> Too bad that the only interaction most pilots -- I am talking renters
> here, I presume that owners would be more involved -- have with the
> nice folks who maintain our aircraft is via the squawk list...
>
> --Sylvain

I would love to be able to go with the owner when they take a plane in for
annual and see part of the inspection process of the rental aircraft. It's
one of those things you get very little exposure to unless you are lucky
enough to own.

Mike

Sylvain > wrote in
:

> Michael wrote:
>
>> How exactly does a commercial certificate help? In my experience,
>> commercial pilots are NOT better pilots than private pilots with the
>> same number of hours.
>
> well, it could be argued that someone who worked towards a commercial
> ticket has had a lot more recurrent training -- and demonstrated a
> greater interest in improving his/her knowledge and skills -- than
> someone who spent the same number of hours making holes in the sky...
> the number of hours doesn't tell the whole story either.
>
> but seriously, one could also wonder how someone who cannot land a
> small aircraft -- I presume that's what we are talking about -- on a
> 2000' runway managed to get a private certificate in the first
> place...
>
> I am not really sure how a club/FBO could improve their safety records
> via just imposing more arbitrary rules that are a pain in the neck to
> the majority of pilots who would be doing just fine without them;
> there are 'problem pilots' out there -- I can think of one guy
> hanging around on my local field who managed to run out of fuel in
> one incident, do a gear up landing in another, and who knows what
> else -- and we kind of all know who they are; not much an issue of
> number of hours or ratings as you point out, but of attitude; not
> even sure recurrent training would do the trick either...
>
> --Sylvain

Are you referring to the guy who did a gear up in SQ2's Arrow 33807 a few
years ago? If so, he is a real terror. He has run an Arrow out of fuel at
least 2 times. One time he managed to badly damage his son for life. Yet
he doesn't learn. I once had an Arrow 7526J reserved for an Angel Flight.
He returns the aircraft late (around 11:15 AM, it was due back 8 PM the
night before), totally unapologetic, and with less than 0.3 gallons of
usable fuel. Not a typo. We put slightly over 47.7 gallons in to top it
off. Even the fuel truck operator couldn't believe it. (I don't want to
put the specifics in the public forum, so I sent this to you as a private
email.)

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

Marty Shapiro wrote:


> Are you referring to the guy

sounds like him (except that it was an Archer and not an Arrow that
he ued to run out of gas with his kid... sorry to hear the kid was
hurt though); I know, I was supposed to fly the dang aircraft next

--Sylvain

ps by the way, the email address in the header won't work anymore; use
giraldus at yahoo

Sylvain wrote:

> Too bad that the only interaction most pilots -- I am talking renters
> here, I presume that owners would be more involved -- have with the
> nice folks who maintain our aircraft is via the squawk list...
>
Some owners are active with their mechanics, some aren't.

My mechanic divides her customers into two groups. Aircraft
owners who will turn a wrench on their plane and those who are
"just pilots."

A guy came into the shop one day and said he thought the battery
was shot in his plane. We were sitting in the back eating lunch
and she told him to bring it in and she'd test it. There was a
blank stare and then she realized, "You're just a pilot. Ron,
go help him take his battery out."