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

"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

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 11:40:06 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote in :

(why don't we call it a "nose wind" instead of a "headwind"?)

If the obverse of a coin is dubbed 'Tails,' why isn't he face called
'noses?' :-)

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

I wonder what the shortest, charted public airport runway is. It used
to be Bold in Alaska (at 1000'), but unless they've renamed it, its not
in airnav.com anymore.

Andrew Gideon wrote in
news
nose (why don't we call it a "nose wind" instead of a "headwind"?).

Sometimes your nose is pointed in a different direction, even though the wind
is still hitting you smack upside the head.

Andrew Gideon wrote:


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

That's a problem?


The reason is simple. There're plenty of pilots out there, for every
single year since they passed their checkride, they increase their
approach speed by about a knot, "just to be on the safe side". So 10
years later, short field approach speed in a 172 would be done at 70
KIAS.

Larry Dighera wrote:
If the obverse of a coin is dubbed 'Tails,' why isn't he face called
'noses?' :-)

Not to get pedantic or anything, but the *obverse* of a coin is "Heads".
The *reverse* is "Tails".

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

On 5 Nov 2006 19:26:57 -0800, "M" wrote:

Andrew Gideon wrote:


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

That's a problem?


The reason is simple. There're plenty of pilots out there, for every
single year since they passed their checkride, they increase their
approach speed by about a knot, "just to be on the safe side". So 10
years later, short field approach speed in a 172 would be done at 70
KIAS.

One of the cues you use for flying a pattern is the aspect ratio of
the runway. At 500 feet, 25 x 1800' runway looks the same as a 50
by 3600' runway at 1000'. (Or something like that; my trig is rusty.)

So, while you're concentrating on the spot on the ground that doesn't
move, your brain is processing other data that says "weird." It can
be distracting.

Don