Warning: 25' wide, 1800' long

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 04:18:29 +0000 (UTC), Alan Gerber
wrote:

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".

And if it lands on the edge, that's perverse.

Don

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 04:30:14 GMT, Don Tuite
wrote:

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.)

I normally use the altimeter so I don't even notice the aspect ratio
although I hear many talk about it.


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.

Again whether it's a long skinny runway or short fat one, if the spot
doesn't move my brain seems to be happy. OTOH I've been acused of
being simple before.


Don
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 04:18:29 +0000 (UTC), Alan Gerber
wrote in :

Not to get pedantic or anything, but

You are correct. Thanks...

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?

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

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 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.

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!

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
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).

I flew a 150 or 152 into 6R5 (Alvin, TX) one day... Don't remember which
runway, but the longest is 1500 ft, so probably that one... It was tight,
but I managed to get stopped before I ended up in the ditch between the
runway and the road... I don't think that I would attempt to go in there
with my Grumman though... I've gone into 2X53 with my Grumman and
the 1900 ft of paved runway was just barely enough for that attempt...
Luckily, it has enough of a grass overrun that the runway is not really
as short as it seems...