Warning: 25' wide, 1800' long

[Andrew Gideon]

I was circling over N85 in my partnership's non-retractable 182,
considering landing. Someone had just landed there (on runway 26). He
suggested that I might want to consider 31, given the wind direction, if I
was "up to it".

"Up to it"?

I've landed at N85 a few times, but never on this "crosswind runway". But
looking at it from the air, I didn't see the issue. So I asked "what's
the big deal?" After all, the crosswind on 26 wasn't really that high;
we'll within my comfort zone. So if 31 was a problem...

And I didn't really need to land here. I wanted the cheap fuel, but there
were other options.

Someone on UNICOM described the problem with the runway: it's small, at
25' width and 1800' length.

That's a problem?

I landed on 31. It was an easy landing with the wind practically on the
nose (why don't we call it a "nose wind" instead of a "headwind"?).

Are there really people that would have trouble putting a 182 onto that
runway. I don't consider myself a stick and rudder king, so this is
leaving me a little puzzled.

- Andrew

[BT]

My CT182T POH states, 1335 ft required to land over a 50ft obsticle, 580ft
ground roll, 10C and SeaLevel day, subtract 10% for each 9knots of head
wind.. distance should not be an issue.
The gear width is 9ft, runway width should not be an issue.

The issue is pilot techinque and proficiency.. how many pilots do you know
that can consitantly land with the nose wheel on the stripe. Let alone be
accurate for the touch down point down the runway.

BT


"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was circling over N85 in my partnership's non-retractable 182,
> considering landing. Someone had just landed there (on runway 26). He
> suggested that I might want to consider 31, given the wind direction, if I
> was "up to it".
>
> "Up to it"?
>
> I've landed at N85 a few times, but never on this "crosswind runway". But
> looking at it from the air, I didn't see the issue. So I asked "what's
> the big deal?" After all, the crosswind on 26 wasn't really that high;
> we'll within my comfort zone. So if 31 was a problem...
>
> And I didn't really need to land here. I wanted the cheap fuel, but there
> were other options.
>
> Someone on UNICOM described the problem with the runway: it's small, at
> 25' width and 1800' length.
>
> That's a problem?
>
> I landed on 31. It was an easy landing with the wind practically on the
> nose (why don't we call it a "nose wind" instead of a "headwind"?).
>
> Are there really people that would have trouble putting a 182 onto that
> runway. I don't consider myself a stick and rudder king, so this is
> leaving me a little puzzled.
>
> - Andrew
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Are there really people that would have trouble putting a 182 onto that
> runway. I don't consider myself a stick and rudder king, so this is
> leaving me a little puzzled.

Of course there are.

For that matter, when I was a relatively new pilot, I recall landing on a
1800' runway in a 172. I had to go around on the first approach, and even
the second attempt resulted in me using a good portion of the runway, much
more than was really needed for a 172 (nearly all of it, in fact).

Been there, done that. I'm much better a short field landings now, but
there are plenty of pilots who never practice them, never need to, and for
whom a runway under 2000' is a big deal. The mere fact that such a short
runway is relatively unusual (in the sense that the bulk of flying, even
with small airplanes, happens at larger airports) means that many pilots
won't be "up to it".

I think it's much more important that a pilot is aware of his limitations,
than that every pilot be able to land their airplane with the maximum
performance the airplane offers. The latter is desirable, of course, but
first and foremost you need a pilot who knows whether they are capable or
not, and is wise enough to not attempt something their skills aren't up for.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 11:40:06 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
wrote in >:

>(why don't we call it a "nose wind" instead of a "headwind"?)

If the obverse of a coin is dubbed 'Tails,' why isn't he face called
'noses?' :-)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

BT wrote:
> My CT182T POH states, 1335 ft required to land over a 50ft obsticle, 580ft
> ground roll, 10C and SeaLevel day, subtract 10% for each 9knots of head
> wind.. distance should not be an issue.
> The gear width is 9ft, runway width should not be an issue.
>
> The issue is pilot techinque and proficiency.. how many pilots do you know
> that can consitantly land with the nose wheel on the stripe. Let alone be
> accurate for the touch down point down the runway.



Many years ago I flew a Piper Arrow down to Westwego just on the outskirts of
New Orleans. Westwego was primarily a seaplane base but they did have a runway
of sorts. You know how when you flare to land, how the runway spreads out of
either side of you? Well, it didn't at Westwego. The wings were wider than the
paved portion of the runway. It wasn't the softest landing I've ever made but
by God it was the straightest.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Doug[_1_]]

I wonder what the shortest, charted public airport runway is. It used
to be Bold in Alaska (at 1000'), but unless they've renamed it, its not
in airnav.com anymore.

[Judah]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in
:

> nose (why don't we call it a "nose wind" instead of a "headwind"?).

Sometimes your nose is pointed in a different direction, even though the wind
is still hitting you smack upside the head.

;)

[M[_1_]]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

>
> Someone on UNICOM described the problem with the runway: it's small, at
> 25' width and 1800' length.
>
> That's a problem?
>

The reason is simple. There're plenty of pilots out there, for every
single year since they passed their checkride, they increase their
approach speed by about a knot, "just to be on the safe side". So 10
years later, short field approach speed in a 172 would be done at 70
KIAS.

[Alan Gerber]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> If the obverse of a coin is dubbed 'Tails,' why isn't he face called
> 'noses?' :-)

Not to get pedantic or anything, but the *obverse* of a coin is "Heads".
The *reverse* is "Tails".

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Don Tuite]

On 5 Nov 2006 19:26:57 -0800, "M" > wrote:

>Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
>>
>> Someone on UNICOM described the problem with the runway: it's small, at
>> 25' width and 1800' length.
>>
>> That's a problem?
>>
>
>The reason is simple. There're plenty of pilots out there, for every
>single year since they passed their checkride, they increase their
>approach speed by about a knot, "just to be on the safe side". So 10
>years later, short field approach speed in a 172 would be done at 70
>KIAS.

One of the cues you use for flying a pattern is the aspect ratio of
the runway. At 500 feet, 25 x 1800' runway looks the same as a 50
by 3600' runway at 1000'. (Or something like that; my trig is rusty.)

So, while you're concentrating on the spot on the ground that doesn't
move, your brain is processing other data that says "weird." It can
be distracting.

Don

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 04:18:29 +0000 (UTC), Alan Gerber
> wrote:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> If the obverse of a coin is dubbed 'Tails,' why isn't he face called
>> 'noses?' :-)
>
>Not to get pedantic or anything, but the *obverse* of a coin is "Heads".
>The *reverse* is "Tails".
>
And if it lands on the edge, that's perverse.

Don

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 04:30:14 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>On 5 Nov 2006 19:26:57 -0800, "M" > wrote:
>
>>Andrew Gideon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Someone on UNICOM described the problem with the runway: it's small, at
>>> 25' width and 1800' length.
>>>
>>> That's a problem?
>>>
>>
>>The reason is simple. There're plenty of pilots out there, for every
>>single year since they passed their checkride, they increase their
>>approach speed by about a knot, "just to be on the safe side". So 10
>>years later, short field approach speed in a 172 would be done at 70
>>KIAS.
>
>One of the cues you use for flying a pattern is the aspect ratio of
>the runway. At 500 feet, 25 x 1800' runway looks the same as a 50
>by 3600' runway at 1000'. (Or something like that; my trig is rusty.)

I normally use the altimeter so I don't even notice the aspect ratio
although I hear many talk about it.

>
>So, while you're concentrating on the spot on the ground that doesn't
>move, your brain is processing other data that says "weird." It can
>be distracting.

Again whether it's a long skinny runway or short fat one, if the spot
doesn't move my brain seems to be happy. OTOH I've been acused of
being simple before.

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 04:18:29 +0000 (UTC), Alan Gerber
> wrote in >:

>Not to get pedantic or anything, but

You are correct. Thanks...

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[...]
>>Are there really people that would have trouble putting a 182 onto that
>>runway. I don't consider myself a stick and rudder king, so this is
>>leaving me a little puzzled.
>
>
> Of course there are.
>
> For that matter, when I was a relatively new pilot, I recall landing on a
> 1800' runway in a 172. I had to go around on the first approach, and even
> the second attempt resulted in me using a good portion of the runway, much
> more than was really needed for a 172 (nearly all of it, in fact).
>
> Been there, done that. I'm much better a short field landings now, but
> there are plenty of pilots who never practice them, never need to, and for
> whom a runway under 2000' is a big deal. The mere fact that such a short
> runway is relatively unusual (in the sense that the bulk of flying, even
> with small airplanes, happens at larger airports) means that many pilots
> won't be "up to it".
>
> I think it's much more important that a pilot is aware of his limitations,
> than that every pilot be able to land their airplane with the maximum
> performance the airplane offers. The latter is desirable, of course, but
> first and foremost you need a pilot who knows whether they are capable or
> not, and is wise enough to not attempt something their skills aren't up for.
>
> Pete
>
>
I learned to fly out of a 1800' runway south of Kansas City, MO. The
name was Hillside. Never had problems with short runways. They even had
a Beech 18 going in and out.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Ross Richardson wrote:
> I learned to fly out of a 1800' runway south of Kansas City, MO. The
> name was Hillside. Never had problems with short runways. They even had
> a Beech 18 going in and out.
>

I've always thought approach and departure obstacles and terrain were as
important as simply stating runway length. There's an certain unnerving
mental aspect when trees or power lines seem to be licking at the
landing gear that isn't there for the same short runway approached over
the water, or miles of flat, undeveloped farmland.

How are the approaches to Hillside?

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 10:11:23 -0800, BT wrote:

> how many pilots do you know
> that can consitantly land with the nose wheel on the stripe. Let alone be
> accurate for the touch down point down the runway.

I don't know. I suppose that this was the question I was really asking.

I took the checkride for the partnership I joined just after getting my
instrument rating. But the checkride was a PPL checkride. I flubbed the
short-field landings part (and I wasn't too good at looking out the window
either {8^).

It was a sobering experience for me. I've worked to avoid letting any of
my skills atrophy like that since then.

[And I've since passed that ride, of course.]

I've yet to actually finish up the commercial (I'm on the slow path {8^),
but most landings offer spot landing practice.

- Andrew

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Ross Richardson wrote:
>
>> I learned to fly out of a 1800' runway south of Kansas City, MO. The
>> name was Hillside. Never had problems with short runways. They even
>> had a Beech 18 going in and out.
>>
>
> I've always thought approach and departure obstacles and terrain were as
> important as simply stating runway length. There's an certain unnerving
> mental aspect when trees or power lines seem to be licking at the
> landing gear that isn't there for the same short runway approached over
> the water, or miles of flat, undeveloped farmland.
>
> How are the approaches to Hillside?


The airport had a hump in the middle, couldn't see either end of the
runway. It has been a long time, but I remember that they only had a
fence on the south end and pretty clear in the north end.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Peter Duniho]

"Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
...
> I learned to fly out of a 1800' runway south of Kansas City, MO. The name
> was Hillside. Never had problems with short runways.

Well, duh...of course if the airport at which you regularly operate is like
that, you'll be well-practiced at it.

My point is that most pilots don't fall into that category.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Ross Richardson wrote:
>
>
> The airport had a hump in the middle, couldn't see either end of the
> runway.

Wow! A short runway with no visibility of the opposite end?

That HAD to scare the crap out of new pax!

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> For that matter, when I was a relatively new pilot, I recall landing on a
> 1800' runway in a 172. I had to go around on the first approach, and even
> the second attempt resulted in me using a good portion of the runway, much
> more than was really needed for a 172 (nearly all of it, in fact).

I flew a 150 or 152 into 6R5 (Alvin, TX) one day... Don't remember which
runway, but the longest is 1500 ft, so probably that one... It was tight,
but I managed to get stopped before I ended up in the ditch between the
runway and the road... I don't think that I would attempt to go in there
with my Grumman though... I've gone into 2X53 with my Grumman and
the 1900 ft of paved runway was just barely enough for that attempt...
Luckily, it has enough of a grass overrun that the runway is not really
as short as it seems...

[Stefan]

B A R R Y schrieb:

> Wow! A short runway with no visibility of the opposite end?
>
> That HAD to scare the crap out of new pax!

The runway I learnt on and still operate from is something like 1700
feet long and you can't see one end from the other, either. Runways of
this lenght are considered pretty standard in wide parts of Europe, and
we typically use no more than two third of the runway length for a
landing with a typical spam can.

The typical pax doesn't even think about it. It requires some discipline
from the pilots, though.

Here's a picture of said airfield:
http://www.eddh.de/x-files/appr-pics/LSZI.jpg

Stefan

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I learned to fly out of a 1800' runway south of Kansas City, MO. The name
>>was Hillside. Never had problems with short runways.
>
>
> Well, duh...of course if the airport at which you regularly operate is like
> that, you'll be well-practiced at it.
>
> My point is that most pilots don't fall into that category.
>
>

Oh, I agree. Those pilots that learned to fly out of 9000' runways have
a disadvantage unless their instructor took them to short runways. I
have a friend that has a 1400' runway with clear approaches and I can
get the Skyhawk down and stopped in half that length, depending on the
wind. I once got check out in Hanscom Field in Boston and wanted to land
at short runways. (I forgot what their limit was at the time) and had to
prove that I could do it. The instructor picked 3 or 4 local airports
that were short (~2400') and I nailed each one. I didn't think they were
short.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

B A R R Y wrote:

> Ross Richardson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The airport had a hump in the middle, couldn't see either end of the
>> runway.
>
>
> Wow! A short runway with no visibility of the opposite end?
>
> That HAD to scare the crap out of new pax!

Yep, it was a fun Ma & Pa airport.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

Stefan wrote:

> B A R R Y schrieb:
>
>> Wow! A short runway with no visibility of the opposite end?
>
> >
> > That HAD to scare the crap out of new pax!
>
> The runway I learnt on and still operate from is something like 1700
> feet long and you can't see one end from the other, either. Runways of
> this lenght are considered pretty standard in wide parts of Europe, and
> we typically use no more than two third of the runway length for a
> landing with a typical spam can.
>
> The typical pax doesn't even think about it. It requires some discipline
> from the pilots, though.
>
> Here's a picture of said airfield:
> http://www.eddh.de/x-files/appr-pics/LSZI.jpg
>
> Stefan
>

Here is Hillside. I am not sure I would believe the statistics they
provide. http://www.airnav.com/airport/63K

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Ross Richardson > wrote:

> I once got check out in Hanscom Field in Boston and wanted to land
> at short runways. (I forgot what their limit was at the time) and had to
> prove that I could do it. The instructor picked 3 or 4 local airports
> that were short (~2400') and I nailed each one. I didn't think they were
> short.

yeah - not a lot of real short fields around KBED, though there are
plenty with trees at both ends.

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

[Kingfish]

Ross Richardson wrote:
> >
> I learned to fly out of a 1800' runway south of Kansas City, MO. The
> name was Hillside. Never had problems with short runways. They even had
> a Beech 18 going in and out.
>

I'm not that familiar with the BE-18 but that does sound impressive.

My charter company has two Caravans & a Pilatus down in St.Barth's
right now. Their airport has a 2000' runway with an *very* interesting
approach, VFR day ops only. Even at high landing weights the PC12 only
uses up half the runway thanks to an 80kt OTF speed, big brakes, and a
reversing prop. I'm guessing the Caravan does just as well.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Ross Richardson wrote:
>> >
>> I learned to fly out of a 1800' runway south of Kansas City, MO. The
>> name was Hillside. Never had problems with short runways. They even had
>> a Beech 18 going in and out.
>>
>
> I'm not that familiar with the BE-18 but that does sound impressive.

A good old airplane. There are still a lot of them flying. It was also used as
a bomber trainer.

The British called it the Hudson, I believe.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Kingfish" > wrote
>
> I'm not that familiar with the BE-18 but that does sound impressive.
Crap, I was going to post a link to a picture and info. site. Here it is:

http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/expeditor.html
--
Jim in NC

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
>
>> I'm not that familiar with the BE-18 but that does sound impressive.
>
> A good old airplane. There are still a lot of them flying. It was also
> used as a bomber trainer.


The "Plane and Pilot" that landed in my mailbox this week has some Beech
18 info.

[Jay Beckman]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kingfish" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> Ross Richardson wrote:
>>> >
>>> I learned to fly out of a 1800' runway south of Kansas City, MO. The
>>> name was Hillside. Never had problems with short runways. They even had
>>> a Beech 18 going in and out.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not that familiar with the BE-18 but that does sound impressive.
>
> A good old airplane. There are still a lot of them flying. It was also
> used as a bomber trainer.
>
> The British called it the Hudson, I believe.
> --
> Jim in NC

Pics of a really nice specimen at:

http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/copperstate2006

5th, 4th and 3rd from the bottom.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
>> I'm not that familiar with the BE-18 but that does sound impressive.
>
> A good old airplane. There are still a lot of them flying. It was also used
> as a bomber trainer.
>
> The British called it the Hudson, I believe.


And our air force called it the C-45. My dad used to carry around cadets in one
for orientation flights back when he was teaching ROTC back in the late 1950s.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Kingfish" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Ross Richardson wrote:
> >> >
> >> I learned to fly out of a 1800' runway south of Kansas City, MO. The
> >> name was Hillside. Never had problems with short runways. They even had
> >> a Beech 18 going in and out.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not that familiar with the BE-18 but that does sound impressive.
>
> A good old airplane. There are still a lot of them flying. It was also used
> as
> a bomber trainer.
>
> The British called it the Hudson, I believe.

Nope -- the Hudson was the bomber version of the Lockheed Model 14
Lodestar (a much bigger plane).

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> I've gone into 2X53 with my Grumman and
> the 1900 ft of paved runway was just barely
> enough for that attempt...

Correction -- 2XS3, not 2X53... Hmmm... I think they changed the identifier
on the airport to T51 these days... The most recent sectional that I had
here at the house was from 1998...

[Kingfish]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
> >> I'm not that familiar with the BE-18 but that does sound impressive.
> >
> > A good old airplane. There are still a lot of them flying. It was also used
> > as a bomber trainer.
> >
> > The British called it the Hudson, I believe.
>
>
> And our air force called it the C-45. My dad used to carry around cadets in one
> for orientation flights back when he was teaching ROTC back in the late 1950s.

Like Orval said, the Hudson was the RAF version of the larger Lockheed
Lodestar. Besides the C-45 Expeditor, the USAAF flew the glass-nosed
AT-11 variant of the Beech 18 for multi engine and bombardier training

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote

> And our air force called it the C-45. My dad used to carry around cadets in
> one for orientation flights back when he was teaching ROTC back in the late
> 1950s.

The first small plane crash scene I ever saw was a Beech 18. I was a kid, and
don't remember all the details. It went down heading into Toledo Express
Airport. (that was what it was called at the time)

It was a freight dog, clipped some tree tops, and went down. It had not been
hauled off yet, and was taped off, but I was impressed at the force of the
destruction. The crash was just a few miles from my house, and I rode over to
look at it on my bicycle, I think. Sad, terrible accident.

I just tried to look it up, but got no results. I guess I'm not smart enough to
make the database search work. :-()
--
Jim in NC