Do you allow landings on short fields?

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/mis...ing/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)

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)