View Single Post
  #14  
Old November 6th 06, 02:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ross Richardson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 91
Default Warning: 25' wide, 1800' long

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
[...]
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