Warning: 25' wide, 1800' long

I was circling over N85 in my partnership's non-retractable 182,
considering landing. Someone had just landed there (on runway 26). He
suggested that I might want to consider 31, given the wind direction, if I
was "up to it".

"Up to it"?

I've landed at N85 a few times, but never on this "crosswind runway". But
looking at it from the air, I didn't see the issue. So I asked "what's
the big deal?" After all, the crosswind on 26 wasn't really that high;
we'll within my comfort zone. So if 31 was a problem...

And I didn't really need to land here. I wanted the cheap fuel, but there
were other options.

Someone on UNICOM described the problem with the runway: it's small, at
25' width and 1800' length.

That's a problem?

I landed on 31. It was an easy landing with the wind practically on the
nose (why don't we call it a "nose wind" instead of a "headwind"?).

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.

- Andrew

My CT182T POH states, 1335 ft required to land over a 50ft obsticle, 580ft
ground roll, 10C and SeaLevel day, subtract 10% for each 9knots of head
wind.. distance should not be an issue.
The gear width is 9ft, runway width should not be an issue.

The issue is pilot techinque and proficiency.. how many pilots do you know
that can consitantly land with the nose wheel on the stripe. Let alone be
accurate for the touch down point down the runway.

BT


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news

I was circling over N85 in my partnership's non-retractable 182,
considering landing. Someone had just landed there (on runway 26). He
suggested that I might want to consider 31, given the wind direction, if I
was "up to it".

"Up to it"?

I've landed at N85 a few times, but never on this "crosswind runway". But
looking at it from the air, I didn't see the issue. So I asked "what's
the big deal?" After all, the crosswind on 26 wasn't really that high;
we'll within my comfort zone. So if 31 was a problem...

And I didn't really need to land here. I wanted the cheap fuel, but there
were other options.

Someone on UNICOM described the problem with the runway: it's small, at
25' width and 1800' length.

That's a problem?

I landed on 31. It was an easy landing with the wind practically on the
nose (why don't we call it a "nose wind" instead of a "headwind"?).

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.

- Andrew

BT wrote:
My CT182T POH states, 1335 ft required to land over a 50ft obsticle, 580ft
ground roll, 10C and SeaLevel day, subtract 10% for each 9knots of head
wind.. distance should not be an issue.
The gear width is 9ft, runway width should not be an issue.

The issue is pilot techinque and proficiency.. how many pilots do you know
that can consitantly land with the nose wheel on the stripe. Let alone be
accurate for the touch down point down the runway.



Many years ago I flew a Piper Arrow down to Westwego just on the outskirts of
New Orleans. Westwego was primarily a seaplane base but they did have a runway
of sorts. You know how when you flare to land, how the runway spreads out of
either side of you? Well, it didn't at Westwego. The wings were wider than the
paved portion of the runway. It wasn't the softest landing I've ever made but
by God it was the straightest.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 10:11:23 -0800, BT wrote:

how many pilots do you know
that can consitantly land with the nose wheel on the stripe. Let alone be
accurate for the touch down point down the runway.

I don't know. I suppose that this was the question I was really asking.

I took the checkride for the partnership I joined just after getting my
instrument rating. But the checkride was a PPL checkride. I flubbed the
short-field landings part (and I wasn't too good at looking out the window
either {8^).

It was a sobering experience for me. I've worked to avoid letting any of
my skills atrophy like that since then.

[And I've since passed that ride, of course.]

I've yet to actually finish up the commercial (I'm on the slow path {8^),
but most landings offer spot landing practice.

- Andrew

"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

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

Ross Richardson wrote:
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.


I've always thought approach and departure obstacles and terrain were as
important as simply stating runway length. There's an certain unnerving
mental aspect when trees or power lines seem to be licking at the
landing gear that isn't there for the same short runway approached over
the water, or miles of flat, undeveloped farmland.

How are the approaches to Hillside?

B A R R Y wrote:
Ross Richardson wrote:

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.


I've always thought approach and departure obstacles and terrain were as
important as simply stating runway length. There's an certain unnerving
mental aspect when trees or power lines seem to be licking at the
landing gear that isn't there for the same short runway approached over
the water, or miles of flat, undeveloped farmland.

How are the approaches to Hillside?


The airport had a hump in the middle, couldn't see either end of the
runway. It has been a long time, but I remember that they only had a
fence on the south end and pretty clear in the north end.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Ross Richardson wrote:


The airport had a hump in the middle, couldn't see either end of the
runway.

Wow! A short runway with no visibility of the opposite end?

That HAD to scare the crap out of new pax!

"Ross Richardson" wrote in message
...
I learned to fly out of a 1800' runway south of Kansas City, MO. The name
was Hillside. Never had problems with short runways.

Well, duh...of course if the airport at which you regularly operate is like
that, you'll be well-practiced at it.

My point is that most pilots don't fall into that category.