Short field training

Clip4 said:
The FAA does not require a demonstration for landing on sod for pilot certificates and landing on a hard, smooth sod runway requires no extraordinary skills. Few of the tricycle gear aircraft used for training provide a soft field procedure, including the 172N model, because landing these aircraft with wheel fairing installed is a recipe for fairing damage.

The FAA does require a demonstration of a soft field take off and landing task. One reason the FAA has the soft field task is because the maneuver may require the applicant to demonstrate an understanding of 4 of the propeller tuning forces which is important to reduce runway departure accidents.

Jeppesen is an industry leader in many aviation related services. I tend to accept their credentials on what should be included in a private pilot syllabus over general opinions of those not in the pilot training industry.
Click to expand...
The FAA standards for testing are not intended to limit training.

Jeppesen sells a product. They sell more product to puppy mills than grass airport instructors, so they go where the market is, including training for the test rather than everything that could be part of somebody’s real world flying.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The FAA standards for testing are not intended to limit training.

Jeppesen sells a product. They sell more product to puppy mills than grass airport instructors, so they go where the market is, including training for the test rather than everything that could be part of somebody’s real world flying.
Click to expand...

Equally, the grass airport instructors are taking many students into Class C airports. As far as real world flying, the vast majority of daily operations are not occurring on sod and snow and rain shut a lot of the sod airports down for winter and spring.
 
Clip4 said:
The FAA does not require a demonstration for landing on sod for pilot certificates and landing on a hard, smooth sod runway requires no extraordinary skills. Few of the tricycle gear aircraft used for training provide a soft field procedure, including the 172N model, because landing these aircraft with wheel fairing installed is a recipe for fairing damage.
Click to expand...

Demonstrating a soft-field operation on an actual soft field on a checkride is impractical. The FAA has decided that a simulation is enough for a test. If it was so unimportant it wouldn't be tested at all.

Clip4 said:
Few of the tricycle gear aircraft used for training provide a soft field procedure, including the 172N model, because landing these aircraft with wheel fairing installed is a recipe for fairing damage.
Click to expand...

The 172N recommends use of flaps 10° for soft of rough fields. Your assertion there is no procedure let alone the reasoning behind it is bizarre.
 
Last edited:
Greg Lutz said:
Sounds like your Warrior could use an engine ;)
Click to expand...
Your response to my quip made me run W&B on my Warrior (PA-28-161). I'd have to gain a lot of weight, but with 4, two-hundred-pounders, full fuel, and no baggage the plane is at 111% of MGW. And in today's world, two-hundred pounds is all too common. With half-fuel 105%.

Four, one-hundred-thirty-seven-pounders with full fuel puts it at 1 pound over MGW.

I've only had four persons in the plane once for what turned out to be a two night trip the Oregon coast. Three were relatively small, one was relatively normal. I allowed each of us 5 pounds of luggage, plus the pilot (me) got an extra 5 pounds for flight gear. Plane was at MGW.

This is why I've always thought of the Warrior as a great two-person plane.
 
Domenick said:
Your response to my quip made me run W&B on my Warrior (PA-28-161). I'd have to gain a lot of weight, but with 4, two-hundred-pounders, full fuel, and no baggage the plane is at 111% of MGW. And in today's world, two-hundred pounds is all too common. With half-fuel 105%.

Four, one-hundred-thirty-seven-pounders with full fuel puts it at 1 pound over MGW.

I've only had four persons in the plane once for what turned out to be a two night trip the Oregon coast. Three were relatively small, one was relatively normal. I allowed each of us 5 pounds of luggage, plus the pilot (me) got an extra 5 pounds for flight gear. Plane was at MGW.

This is why I've always thought of the Warrior as a great two-person plane.
Click to expand...
I had a 150 horse Cardinal so I was pretty much in the same place. Replaced it with a 210 so useful load is much less of an issue
 
I would bring students to that runway. But point out how much extra runway there is. So to a short field landing to a full stop and see that a good bit of runway is left. Do a short field take off and see how much is left after liftoff.

It all about how you present it.

BTW, I did my PP on a 2,000 foot runway flying a Grumman Tiger.
 
Greg Lutz said:
I had a 150 horse Cardinal so I was pretty much in the same place. Replaced it with a 210 so useful load is much less of an issue
Click to expand...
There's a reason I've owned all or part of the same C206 for nearly 40 years now. It does almost anything you ask from it as long as you feed it a little more fuel and leave just a little earlier. Fixed gear helps with lower maintenance and insurance, offsetting some of the higher fuel cost.
 
dbahn said:
There's a reason I've owned all or part of the same C206 for nearly 40 years now. It does almost anything you ask from it
Click to expand...

Love the 206. It has done everything I have asked from it and more. My favorite Alaska off airport plane.
 
Clip4 said:
Equally, the grass airport instructors are taking many students into Class C airports. As far as real world flying, the vast majority of daily operations are not occurring on sod and snow and rain shut a lot of the sod airports down for winter and spring.
Click to expand...
No, not equally. The point is that neither the FAA nor Jeppesen represent the full range of operations, so saying that certain training isn’t necessary because it’s not in the ACS or Jeppesen syllabus is a cop-out.
 
MauleSkinner said:
No, not equally. The point is that neither the FAA nor Jeppesen represent the full range of operations, so saying that certain training isn’t necessary because it’s not in the ACS or Jeppesen syllabus is a cop-out.
Click to expand...

A good CFI should be doing more than the ACS, JEPP, Gliem, Etc. I students to do tailwind landings so they can experience it. I do stalls, slow flight, steep turns under the floggles so they can experience it. One of that is covered in ACS, or and syllabus.
 
FWIW, 1,700 feet is short for me, and I'd probably pass on it most of the time. It's fairly easily within the limits for my airplane (though not at gross with a 50' obstacle), but I don't feel that's it's really within my comfort zone, so - that's my decision. If I had a real need to go there I'd get out and do a fair bit of short field practice first (on a longer runway) and then decide based on how that was going. If 1,700 is "not really that short" for you, then good for you -- you probably have better skills in that area than I do. That's fine, but I'm not going to set my personal limits based on your skills. :)

I'm sure a factor is that I did most of my initial training from a 5,500 foot runway, and my current home base has a 10,000 foot runway. But I'm sure I could practice up to a much shorter field if I had the need.
 
deyoung said:
I'm sure a factor is that I did most of my initial training from a 5,500 foot runway, and my current home base has a 10,000 foot runway. But I'm sure I could practice up to a much shorter field if I had the need.
Click to expand...

That's always fine, but keep in mind that one reason to learn short field approach and landing technique is that you might need it in the event of an engine failure, so sometimes when the need arises it's too late to satisfy it. At least here in Vermont the option to always be within gliding distance of a suitable airport is a myth.
 
deyoung said:
If 1,700 is "not really that short" for you, then good for you -- you probably have better skills in that area than I do.
Click to expand...


Or a different airplane.

It's silly to talk "short field" in absolute numbers such as 1700 feet. Ignoring wind, what constitutes "short" depends on the airplane's capability and the density altitude. 1700' was no problem at all in the LSAs I flew in training, but I won't attempt it in my Beech.

And it's more a function of the required takeoff distance and obstacles than landing. On a 90F day here in Florida (sea level), the book number for takeoff distance over a 50' obstacle is 1566'. I'd be an idiot to go into a 1700' field thinking I could get out again safely.
 
Half Fast said:
On a 90F day here in Florida (sea level), the book number for takeoff distance over a 50' obstacle is 1566'. I'd be an idiot to go into a 1700' field thinking I could get out again safely.
Click to expand...


Just remember to pickup your feet when you get to the tree line ... :D
 
Greg Lutz said:
I fly out of a 1,760 foot field. That's not long but it's not short enough to require short field procedures (unless you've got 4 fat guys in a 145hp 172 on a hot day).

Instructors bring their students in to practice short field procedures. I think this does a real disservice to the student. It leads them to believe 1,760 is short and that they can just go back to their 3,500 foot runways and practice sloppy airman-ship. Of course these instructors are probably just teaching what they learned.
Click to expand...
IMG_2285.JPG

It almost seems like you are trolling us?
Cause 1700' is pretty short to train a new pilot on.
I learned short/soft field take offs and landings on a 6000' class delta airport just fine.
I only landed on grass one day during my pp training and it during a stage check and with the chief instructor and I think I did 2 landings.
It was enough to give me the basics so when I got my PPL I knew enough not to kill myself.
1700' turf, 172 160hp with power flow exhaust and wheel pants above!
I have landed on this short turf runway many times all year long and on a 95 degree day and 2 people my 160 172 uses more than half of this runway especially when the grass is tall. So I figure 1700' short for a 172.
My instructor would not let me do T&Gs at my airport that I keep my plane at which is 2900' And I still learned just fine staying off of it until I got my PPL.
I have flown over a 1000 hrs in my 172 since 2018 and have landed at all the turf strips around here hundreds of times now and all with wheel pants. Except for a few months I took them off last year for a change of look during a tire change. I put them back on right before the snow and ice this past winter.
It was so rewarding exploring my limits and the planes limits on turf airports that are lightly used. I love getting low and slow on turf.

I have landed at this turf airport 47 times in 2020. I still go here pretty often to let my dog exercise.
I don''t feel you need to train on a short field to learn with a instructor. I learned more by myself and it was more exciting that way too all while being safe and within limits of the airplane. In the flare in this picture at about 40kts IAS.
IMG_1855.JPG
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
Why do you need a lot of excess runway to train a new pilot?
Click to expand...
So the new pilot does not have to consider the length of the runway while learning. If I heard you got plenty of runway once I heard it a hundred times from my instructors.
Why should a instructor put himself at risk and the school airplane at risk on a short runway when the job can be done on longer runway. I think the school would agree with that also?
 
The issue with a "short" runway is NOT takeoff. Most Typical GA planes are airborne within 1000 feet.

The issue with a "short" runway is landing--misjudging and/or floating past the touchdown point and going long. You cannot expect a student pilot to be proficient at spot landings. If I were a CFI, I wouldn't let my students land at a 1750 foot field until they could consistently put it down on the numbers on a longer runway. And even then, I'd be ready to call a go-around.
 
Last edited:
Domenick said:
The issue with a "short" runway is NOT takeoff. Most Typical GA planes are airborne within 1000 feet.
Click to expand...

On pavement, sure. But add in some long grass a little sponginess, a bit of weight and that 1000 comes and goes quickly. But with long grass and sponginess the landing distance becomes shorter than take off. Ask almost anyone that's been into 6Y9. @Jim K @flyingcheesehead

As far as training. I could always get the 152 stopped shorter than it used for take off.
 
That's also assuming no obstructions.

I'm pretty confident I could safely get into fields I couldn't get back out of safely with both my Mooney and Lance. With grass, I'm absolutely certain of it.

Also, unless you trailered the plane in, if you're taking off, someone has already proven the aircraft can land there....
 
Gary Ward said:
So the new pilot does not have to consider the length of the runway while learning. If I heard you got plenty of runway once I heard it a hundred times from my instructors.
Why should an instructor put himself at risk and the school airplane at risk on a short runway when the job can be done on longer runway. I think the school would agree with that also?
Click to expand...
There are a lot of schools that agree with that, but they also have the opportunity to create pilots who need all of the runway. Why not learn to land correctly from the beginning?
 
This was early on when I was told I had plenty of runway. Then hit numbers was drilled into my head as time went on.
Even though I learned on a crazy long runway in a 172 didn't make me a crappy lander.
I was lucky that I could afford my own trainer after I got my PPL and continued my training on my own and learned to land short.
The first flight in my plane when it owned by my friend was at a 2900' runway. I was nervous at first, then after the first landing I was wth was my instructor talking about? As I got it on the runway with more than half leftover.
 
Last edited:
Gary Ward said:
Then hit numbers was drilled into my head as time went on.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that is seldom the case.

I’ve flown with “professional” pilots for whom the first 3000 feet of runway wasn’t usable in strong crosswinds. 1/3 of accidents for at least the last decade have been runway excursions. The biggest loss of airframes of the type I work with is runway excursions on landing. The most frequent checkride busts I see are landing 3000-4000 feet down the runway. It all boils down to poor potty training.
 
My first dual cross country flight was to a 1650ft grass strip, not planned, he just told me a direction to fly and then “land here”. It looked short from the air, and a heck of a lot shorter when I bounced (taildragger), blipped the throttle for a moment to correct and let it settle back down like I had done many times before on the long runway I was used to when I saw the full grown corn at the end and firewalled it for a go around…right as it threepointed, a moments hesitation latter I’m now committed to taking back off, and that corns coming faster and faster, “how can I turn this onto the other tee intersection runway to get another 200 ft without ground looping, full opposite aileron to use adverse yaw and hopefully keep the inside wing stalled?..crap, crap, crap!” Was going through my head as it lifted off just in enough time to barely clear the corn and do a go around. Got a couple hundred feet up then my instructor calmly says “it’s a shorter runway” nothing more and had not said a word while it was happening. Second round was one of the few times I’ve ever drug it in with power..learned a good lesson that day though, long runway catching a bounce isn’t hard, if you need to add throttle on a short field add it all and don’t pull it back again.
 
If I landed 4000 feet down the runway I'd be in the grass at the home field.

Close by we have a 2900' grass field but it has a 900' threshold on each end because of the trees. My little plane slips in & out of there without too much worry ...
 
Gary Ward said:
So the new pilot does not have to consider the length of the runway while learning. If I heard you got plenty of runway once I heard it a hundred times from my instructors.
Why should a instructor put himself at risk and the school airplane at risk on a short runway when the job can be done on longer runway. I think the school would agree with that also?
Click to expand...
My 1800' old home base? It had a flight school. Student pilot training from lesson 1. All it meant was, 1800' was normal to them and they learned good procedures from the beginning (and they had no problem with short fields ;))
 
Last edited:
Shortest field I remember landing on was 1000'. I was in a Quad City Challenger II long wing with the owner/instructor in the rear seat. Had to be very close coming over the 4' fence at one end but those planes land quite slow and the grass slowed it down quickly ...
 
EdFred said:
On pavement, sure. But add in some long grass a little sponginess, a bit of weight and that 1000 comes and goes quickly. But with long grass and sponginess the landing distance becomes shorter than take off. Ask almost anyone that's been into 6Y9. @Jim K @flyingcheesehead
Click to expand...

'tis true. Normally in the Mooney I can get out of any place I can get into - It's got way more hp than it needs.

At 6Y9, however, the reverse is true. Heavy airplane, thick grass, and I had to have Ed ferry my family to KLNL in the Comanche 'cuz I was climbing over the trees at Vx-5 when I tried it solo. And that's a 2600-foot strip.
 
Rgbeard said:
I never said it was most typical. Just clarifying the category.
Click to expand...
The category was “most typical GA planes”. You questioned the statement because it excluded Citations.

Rgbeard said:
But based on landings at my home airport - they're awfully common.
Click to expand...
How do you know whether they’re GA or Air Carrier?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top