unicate wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

That seems like a truly bizarre rule. Was this insurance related,
perhaps? I can't see any sane FBO having these sort of rules voluntarily.


Nearly all the flight schools/FBOs in this area have that rule, even the
one that specializes in tailwheel instruction. But again, most non-paved
strips here are considered "soft". With the school I worked at, it was
both insurance related and they don't want additional wear&tear and
maintenance on the aircraft. After only a few times landing and taxiing
my own airplane in the dirt, I could see it taking its toll on the plane
and avoid it now, if at all possible. Not bizarre at all if you're the
one paying the bills on the airplane, and you care what it looks like.

I agree if you are talking a dirt or mud strip rather than grass.
Decent grass is much easier on the airplane than pavement. Less stress
on the gear, less wear on the brakes and much less wear on the tires.
The FBO where I learned to fly required us to use the grass runway
whenever it was usable as his tires lasted almost forever on the grass,
but not long at all with students landing on the asphalt. :-)
Obviously, we're talking about his other students! :-)

I paid the bills on my Skylane for six years and was very happy to have
it based at a grass strip. I sold my share of the airplane six years
after I bought it and we never replaced the tires during that time and
the airplane flew about 800 hours during this time and made probably at
least that many landings and likely more, probably 600-700 on the grass
and the rest on asphalt at our destinations. I'm not sure, but I don't
know if you could get 800 landings on asphalt on a set of tires.

You folks that fly exclusively on pavement, what is your typical tire
life in number of landings?


Matt