How to land on a grass airstrip

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dave Stadt wrote:

During my training neither I nor the CFIs were allowed to land on turf.
Soon as I passed the check ride I could rent from the same FBO and land
anywhere I wanted without additional training but the CFIs were still
under the no turf rule. First flight after the checkride I headed for a
turf strip and haven't looked back since. I suspect those CFIs would be
the last people someone seeking guidance on turf landings would want to
talk to. For those seeking a CFIs advice be very, very careful in
choosing the CFI and make sure they have experience in the area you are
seeking advice.

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.


Matt

No one ever accused this particular FBO of being sane. I have come across
similar bizarre rules. They are often blamed on insurance companies but
seldom is that the reason. Some people like making rules no matter how
idiotic. Thank goodness I don't have to put up the rental nonsense anymore.

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.

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

Matt Whiting wrote:
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! :-)

:-) That's true. There are very few grass strips to be found here, the
unpaved strips are usually dirt/sand. Not only is there wear and tear on
tires and paint, but the dust that gets kicked up as you taxi gets
sucked into every inch of your airplane.

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

I've never tracked it. I figure this is where I fly, and pavement is it
.... when I need tires, I need tires.

Dave Stadt wrote:

It certainly is not. Turf in no way implies soft field. I'm beginning to
understand why so many pilots go comatose at the thought of landing on grass
when in fact it is much more forgiving than hard surface.


Thanks to both you and Matt but what do you mean by grass being more
forgiving than a hard surface? I'm no pilot but I think that if one of
your reversers deploys just a touch later than the other, you'd be in
greater trouble on grass. There'd also probably be increased chances of
debris ingestion when reversing. And if you want to kick after touching
down in a crab, you might want a hard surface underneath.

Others here might hold a different view on this.

Ramapriya

NOTAMS are often not available or are badly out of date.
Grass runways will be NOTAM L and not distributed out of the
local area or included in a briefing unless you demand that
the be checked.


"george" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jose wrote:
| You are the second person who can't distinguish
between a grass strip and a soft field.
|
| Yanno, a grass strip should be treated as a soft field
unless you know
| otherwise. An unfamiliar grass strip can hide problems
that an
| unfamiliar asphalt strip would not.
|
| We have NOTAMS for that sort of information
|

In article .com,
wrote:

Dave Stadt wrote:

It certainly is not. Turf in no way implies soft field. I'm beginning to
understand why so many pilots go comatose at the thought of landing on grass
when in fact it is much more forgiving than hard surface.


Thanks to both you and Matt but what do you mean by grass being more
forgiving than a hard surface? I'm no pilot but I think that if one of
your reversers deploys just a touch later than the other, you'd be in
greater trouble on grass. There'd also probably be increased chances of
debris ingestion when reversing. And if you want to kick after touching
down in a crab, you might want a hard surface underneath.

Others here might hold a different view on this.

Ramapriya

What reversers? We are talking about light, General Aviation airplanes
here, not big jets! We have brakes, flaps, propellers, etc.

wrote:

Dave Stadt wrote:

It certainly is not. Turf in no way implies soft field. I'm beginning to
understand why so many pilots go comatose at the thought of landing on grass
when in fact it is much more forgiving than hard surface.



Thanks to both you and Matt but what do you mean by grass being more
forgiving than a hard surface? I'm no pilot but I think that if one of
your reversers deploys just a touch later than the other, you'd be in
greater trouble on grass. There'd also probably be increased chances of
debris ingestion when reversing. And if you want to kick after touching
down in a crab, you might want a hard surface underneath.

Well, you wouldn't likely fly a typical jet on grass! Reversers aren't
a concern on the airplanes that I fly.

It is more forgiving in a couple of ways:

1. The tires spin up more slowling since they can slide along the grass
as they touch down. You don't see the puff of smoke as often is the
case on pavement.

2. Likewise, the reduced friction also allows the tires to sideslip a
little more. So, if you touchdown with less than perfect alignment, you
won't have the sudden veering that will happen on pavement. However,
this is absolutely not an excuse to be sloppy and have less than perfect
longitudinal alignment at touchdown.

Others here might hold a different view on this.

Undoubtedly! :-)


Matt

wrote in message
...
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.

Around here the FBOs that rent taildraggers only allow operation on grass.
Grass causes no additional wear and tear and in fact is easier on tires. We
are talking about turf runways not dirt.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Dave Stadt wrote:

It certainly is not. Turf in no way implies soft field. I'm beginning
to
understand why so many pilots go comatose at the thought of landing on
grass
when in fact it is much more forgiving than hard surface.


Thanks to both you and Matt but what do you mean by grass being more
forgiving than a hard surface? I'm no pilot but I think that if one of
your reversers deploys just a touch later than the other, you'd be in
greater trouble on grass. There'd also probably be increased chances of
debris ingestion when reversing. And if you want to kick after touching
down in a crab, you might want a hard surface underneath.

Others here might hold a different view on this.

Ramapriya

I removed the reversers years ago.