How to land on a grass airstrip

Matt,

You guys make landing on a grass strip sound like rocket science. This
just isn't a big deal and any competent private pilot should have no
trouble doing this.


I fully agree. Most GA airfields here in Germany are grass, BTW, so it's
the other way around he Students make a big deal out of landing on
pavement. Funny!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

Again, only if this is a soft field. Grass strip isn't synonymous with soft field. If you don't
know the difference, I suggest some remedial instruction.



Ok Matt, I fess up to being one who doesn't. Isn't a non-asphalt
surface like grass what's called soft-field? This looks confusing...

A soft-field is one where the wheels sink into the surface enough that
standard landing and taxiing techniques aren't effective. This can be
caused by a number of things such as: very soggy sod, sand, small pea
size gravel, deep or very wet snow, very tall grass, etc.

A reasonably well maintained grass strip with grass mowed to 4" or less
and not built on a sand pit or peat bog or supersaturated with water as
after a couple of days of heavy rain or during the spring thaw, is NOT a
soft field and standard landing and taxiing techniques work just fine.
You can land and then use power to hold the nose off if you want and
then taxi like a banshee back down the field, but just hope none of the
locals are watching as they'll get a good chuckle. And most such fields
I've landed at will have at least one old codger who'll make a comment
when you exit the airplane. :-)


Matt

Dale wrote:

In article ,
A Lieberman wrote:



See above, grass strips are not concrete runways, the sub surface the grass
is growing on adds drag to ground ops which is a distinctly different
technique then hard top runways / taxiways.

Not only that, more irregularities in the surface and taxiing or landing at
an excessive speed WITHOUT using soft field techniques will just invite you
to a potential prop strike if your nose wheel just happens to dig in.



I've got somewhere between 3500 and 4000 landings on a grass strip.
That strip is not "soft" except in spring right after the snow melt.
And it isn't clay, it's just turf. Sure, it is "softer" than a paved
runway but not to the point where any special technique is required. I
fly a 206 out of the strip. I have flown a Caravan there and quite often
we have a Twin Otter operate out of our strip. Even the heavier
airplanes don't require any special technique due to being operated on
grass.

Yes, it takes a bit more power to taxi because of the drag of the grass.
By the same token you use less brake on landing. If you land during or
soon after a rain shower you'll be wishing you had an anchor to throw to
help you get stopped!! G On our strip there is no worry about "digging
in the nosewheel". The surface is just too firm for that to happen.

Now, your assumption that all grass fields are soft and then applying
soft-field techniques isn't going to hurt you, I would do the same thing
on a strip I didn't have any information on, but it's silly to state
that special techniques are "required" just because a runway is grass
and not paved.

Finally, someone else with some experience and understanding. You are
well above me. I probably have only 400 or so grass strip landings.
But the last 399 weren't much different than the first one. :-)

After a heavy rain you certainly had to use soft-field techniques
likewise right after the airport re-opened after spring thaw, but the
remaining 95% of the year, it was just like landing on a hard surface
runway other than, as you say, needing very slightly more power to taxi.

Matt

A Lieberman wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 01:47:11 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:


But when you are taxiing back after landing that 30 knot headwind is now
a 30 knot tailwind. Holding full up elevator with that strong a
tailwind will put a lot more weight on the nosewheel and may even flip
the airplane on its nose. You did learn proper control positioning for
taxiing in strong windds during your primary instruction didn't you?


Duh, good point :-)

Helps to read you did say taxiing back...

Yes, and that is why I'm against teaching pilots to fly using techniques
that aren't required for the conditions. If you get a low-time pilot
all jazzed up thinking that he needs to treat every grass strip like a
peat bog, then he's going to be focused on keeping that elevator back in
his gut as he taxis back. And as soon as he turns around after the
landing roll-out, he's going to start moving like a banshee on the hard
surface since he's using so much throttle to keep the nosewheel from
digging in. Then he'll back off the throttle to slow down since the
field isn't really soft. However, dollars to donuts he won't think to
simultaneously release the nosewheel. Once the airflow from the prop is
gone and not offseting the tail wind, bad things can happen.

That is why I'm fairly adamant that a pilot should fly the conditions
that exist, not some hypothetical condition that is likely to exist less
than 5% of the time, which is probably about how often a grass field is
also a soft field. And you can almost always find out when that 5%
occurs by either watching the weather or calling ahead to the field.


Matt

A Lieberman wrote:

On 17 Jun 2006 20:54:11 -0700, wrote:


Ok Matt, I fess up to being one who doesn't. Isn't a non-asphalt
surface like grass what's called soft-field? This looks confusing...


Just wondering what other CFI's feel about this thread???? Do you teach
your students to use soft field landing techniques on grass fields???

Mine did..... On real grass too!

I will post this question on rec.aviation.student.

Interesting question. It will be fun to see the responses. Might want
to capture the age of the instructors as well. I'm betting you'll see a
difference between those less than about 50 years old or less than say
30 years of instruction experience and those older or more experienced
that this.

I was taught not to use a "standard" approach for very many things, but
to use what is required by the prevailing conditions. Just as we
discussed some time back regarding landing airplanes of difference
character. I was taught to apply whatever control pressure or motion
was required to get the performance desired and not to worry what I'd
done before in that airplane or a different airplane. People who
weren't taught this way are the ones that land a 182 on the nosewheel
and bend the firewall. The "well that's how hard I pulled to flare in
my C-150" is a pretty poor excuse for a pranged airplane and my primary
instructor would dis-own me if I ever made such a comment.

Giving a "standard" solution that should be used "always" is, in my
opinion, the sign of very poor instruction and judgement.


Matt

Ben Hallert wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:


This is funny. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you have little
experience on grass runways, especially short ones.


As PIC, I have to make decisions for myself about many things,
including when I want a refresher with a CFI. Maybe you don't respect
my choice to do so, and that's your perogative, but in the end, it's my
butt on the line, not yours.

That's correct, and I hope you seek out good enough instruction to save it.


When I've read some of your responses on this thread, I've been
reminded of some of the risk factors outlined in 'The Killing Zone', a
book that describes attitudes that kill pilots. You might be a
multi-thousand hour pilot, but if you're really as complacent as you
sound, I believe you are at an elevated risk of mishap.

If you think that advocating that someone use the correct technique for
the prevailing situation and not try to scare someone into using
improper technique just because the field is green instead of black, is
a poor attitude, then I feel sorry for you.

Matt

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Matt,


You guys make landing on a grass strip sound like rocket science. This
just isn't a big deal and any competent private pilot should have no
trouble doing this.



I fully agree. Most GA airfields here in Germany are grass, BTW, so it's
the other way around he Students make a big deal out of landing on
pavement. Funny!

How true! I was fortunate in learning on a field that had asphalt and
grass side by side. We used the asphalt in the winter (it damaged the
grass to plow snow from it) and early spring during the thawing season,
and then used the grass during late spring, summer and fall. Switching
from grass to asphalt is simply a non-event.

Actually, asphalt does present more challenges in many ways as it is
much less forgiving of any longitudinal missalignment at touchdown. It
is also less forgiving if you land with a stuck brake.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Giving a "standard" solution that should be used "always" is, in my
opinion, the sign of very poor instruction and judgement.

Then why would you be so adamant that grass is not synonymous with soft
field? Grass isn't synonymous with a hard surface in *every* case,
either. It may or may not be, and as another poster said, if you use
soft-field technique and it's a hard surface underneath, no harm done;
if you assume it is a hard surface under the grass because someone on
the newsgroup told you grass is *not* synonymous with soft-field and it
turns out NOT to be ...

And no, I'm not talking about an airstrip that you an check out as part
of your preflight; I'm talking about the blanket generalization that
grass is not soft-field.

Matt Whiting wrote:

I was taught not to use a "standard" approach for very many things, but to use what
is required by the prevailing conditions. Just as we discussed some time back
regarding landing airplanes of difference character.

Giving a "standard" solution that should be used "always" is, in my opinion, the sign of
very poor instruction and judgement.

Matt


Matt, you seem to suggest that the way to go is to actually encourage
each pilot to think for himself, even if it means wearing his hat at a
different angle, depending on prevalent conditions. Have I understood
you correctly?

Ramapriya

Matt Whiting schrieb:

You guys make landing on a grass strip sound like rocket science. This
just isn't a big deal and any competent private pilot should have no
trouble doing this.

I fully agree with this part. Personally, I even think landing on a
reasonably maintained grass strip is much easier than on asphalt,
because it's much more forgiving. Having learnt to fly taildraggers on
grass, my first landing on asphalt was, well, interesting.

A competent pilot should have the skill to gradually expand
their skill and experience on their own. Landing on grass just isn't
something that should require a CFI.

And here I *completely* disagree. A competent pilot is a pilot who knows
and respects his limits and, when in doubt, stays on the safe side. If a
low timer who has never seen a grass strip before feels unsafe to
explore it on his own, then by all means, encourage him to get an FI!
The worst (best?) thing that can happen is that he'll learn that it
actually wasn't a big deal. And if the FI was competent, he'll probably
learn a couple more things, too. But to discourage a low timer to rent
an FI when he feels unsafe is simply reckless. The question is not
whether you or I would do this, the only question is wheter that
particular pilot feels safe. And blaming his primary instruction is
rather pointless and doesn't help him the least bit.

He didn't ask how to land on a grass airstrip
that is saturated with water and is located on a peat bog.

Each and every grass strip I know is sometimes saturated with water. And
if the only thing the FI does is to explain this, he was already cheaper
than to find it out by experience.

Stefan