Do you allow landings on short fields?

(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.

John,

I was flying the pattern at Palo Alto (PAO)


Wonder why you just happen mention THAT airport ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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)

"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