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