Short field training

Greg Lutz

Greg Lutz

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
May 3, 2023
Messages
27
Display Name
Display name:
ethergreg
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.
 
Where is this field? Hot and high fields can make a 1760 foot runway short.
 
You can learn short field technique on any length runway. You could also find the shortest runway for the aircraft and loading that you're using, and just hope that the student performs perfectly on the first try. :eek:

What would be better is to have a good 50 foot obstacle to clear first.
 
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 …
Click to expand...

I know people who consider 2500 as “short”.

I would consider this short from a risk standpoint. If you’re taking off and discover insufficient performance, is there time to come to a stop?

No, I’ll use every inch I can and short field techniques to cover Murphy.
 
bflynn said:
If you’re taking off and discover insufficient performance, is there time to come to a stop?
Click to expand...

There's good math behind the 70/50 rule. Calculate 70% of rotation speed and if you haven't reached it by 50% of the takeoff runway, you have time to abort safely.

You can estimate that by takeoff performance charts and existing conditions (DA, wind, gross weight, etc.) but that's always just an estimate.
 
It's relative. 1760' might be short for a Cirrus, adequate for a 150, downright luxurious for a Super Cub, and cross country for an ultralight. :D

Years ago I used to fly out of the old Ramapo Airport in southern NY. The runway was around 2000' and narrow, and the running joke was that pilots training at Teterboro came to Ramapo to learn how to run off the end of the runway, down the hill and into the trees. There was quite the airplane graveyard down the hill near the end of the runway.
 
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...

I was taught short field procedures on a 5,500 foot long runway and I teach short field procedures on an 8,004 foot long runway.

Why would I need a short field to practice short field procedures?

How is that a disservice to my learners?

I also teach soft field procedures on a hard surface runway.

After six years I still have a hundred percent pass rate.

It reads to me like you are ready for some recurrent training to better understand what a short field takeoff entails.
 
Vance Breese said:
I was taught short field procedures on a 5,500 foot long runway and I teach short field procedures on an 8,004 foot long runway.

Why would I need a short field to practice short field procedures?

How is that a disservice to my learners?

I also teach soft field procedures on a hard surface runway.

After six years I still have a hundred percent pass rate.

It reads to me like you are ready for some recurrent training to better understand what a short field takeoff entails.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood me. I think you should teach short field on the 8,000 ft runway. I think teaching it at my 1,760 foot field give students the impression that it is short when it really isn't. It does require some respect but it is well within the envelope for most planes.
 
Greg Lutz said:
I think you misunderstood me. I think you should teach short field on the 8,000 ft runway. I think teaching it at my 1,760 foot field give students the impression that it is short when it really isn't. It does require some respect but it is well within the envelope for most planes.
Click to expand...

Just trolling, or are you annoyed students are using your airport?
 
Years ago, I bought my first airplane, a 1957 Cessna 172. The seller did the deal at a nearby public airport, but then I had to fly him home where he had a 1,200-foot grass strip with tall trees on one end and his home on the other end. Having done hundreds of "maximum effort" landings in the Air Force, this was not a big challenge, especially since the airplane had a STOL kit. He was impressed.

But as a CFI, we do short field training on a long hard surfaced runway. Land and stop by the thousand-foot makers. The DPE is not going to take them to a real short field or have them do soft field procedures on grass. We emphasize that if you really want to use a truly short runway, let's do it together first.
 
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...

Since you obviously don’t know what you are talking about, 1760 is plenty short for student operations and shorter than most flight schools allow in their SOP.
 
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...


And 1,760 feet of asphalt in the prairie at sea level is totally different than 1,760 feet of grass at high altitude surrounding by trees. Technique is what you're teaching, and application of that technique comes later with judgment, which always includes consideration of wind, temperature, gross weight, aircraft performance, etc., etc.

If you think short field training should occur on short fields, do you also think stall training should occur at low altitudes, where performance is more critical?
 
Greg Lutz said:
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...
Do you know what the instructors are actually teaching? If not, how do you know it's actually a disservice? What if the CFI is actually telling the student that it's not "that" short, but that it's more challenging than home base? I know I take tailwheel students to a smaller strip rather frequently not because it's shorter, but because it's a LOT narrower, which is usually eye-opening.
 
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
Click to expand...

The Cessna 150 lists a total takeoff distance of 1,400 feet to clear an obstacle, and that's at sea level under standard conditions, giving a 360 foot margin. How do you know does not require short field technique, when the given takeoff and landing distance requires short field technique and there is no way to calculate distance for any other technique?
 
You know, there are many, many aircraft that consider the 1,750 pretty much a no-go. To call this NOT a short field requires significant compartmentalization or at least significant type limitations in your declaration. I guess you want to be a bigballer and show everyone you can do it in 600’. What’s the point, again?
 
I agree that instructors can teach short field procedures on a longer runway if that's where they're based, but all students should experience short, long, wide, narrow, paved, and grass runways during their training.
 
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...
Short is in the mind - and experience - of the beholder. I flew for a few years out of an 1800' runway. Even did my instrument training there. So what is short to me is different than what is short to someone who has rarely flown to an airport with less than 3,000'.

That reality doesn't bother me all that much. Frankly, I don't see the "disservice" of bringing a student to any strip substantially different than what they are used to. Not bringing them to one nearby would be the disservice.

We have a wonderful BBQ restaurant on a 2500 runway (ID: BQ1) here. On one end there are trees on the approach and associated 300' displaced threshold. Short? Not really, but too many pilots are hesitant about going there because of the length because the are used to 4000-6000'. Heck, one of the flight school/clubs even prohibits flying some of their airplanes into it :( (lowest common denominator rules).

That's really unfortunate. Much more unfortunate than never flying into an airport with the minimum POH runway length. One thing I've done with run-of-the mill recurrent training is to try to overcome that hesitation. A flight for lunch is, of course, best, but I've come up with an exercise at our 6,000' runway. There's a taxiway exit 1300' from the threshold. The goal is simple - to turn off at that exit without heavy braking. Most do it the first time, and it's a great confidence booster - they learn the can if they need to. Others need work, which they insist on because they think it's really "cool" and decide to practice it regularly.
 
Vance Breese said:
Why would I need a short field to practice short field procedures?
Click to expand...
For the ACS short field landing, not at all.

I disagree with @Greg Lutz on his definition of short, but there is a missing reality factor when you know there is an extra 4,000 feet in front of you. This is really not much different than hood vs actual for instrument training.
 
Dana said:
I agree that instructors can teach short field procedures on a longer runway if that's where they're based, but all students should experience short, long, wide, narrow, paved, and grass runways during their training.
Click to expand...



Jeppesen, the most widely used syllabus in the US, disagrees with you and has no grass, short or narrow runway requirement in their private or commercial pilot syllabus.

The reason is many flight schools have runway restrictions in their SOPs grass runways for risk management.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
The reason is many flight schools have runway restrictions in their SOPs grass runways for risk management.
Click to expand...
Probably more flight schools have restrictions than don't. In over 30 years living in 3 states and renting in several others, I've seen 1.5 flight schools which allow grass even partly.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Probably more flight schools have restrictions than don't. In over 30 years living in 3 states and renting in several others, I've seen 1.5 flight schools which allow grass even partly.
Click to expand...
Where did you locate a fraction of a flight school?
 
Clip4 said:
Where did you locate a fraction of a flight school?
Click to expand...
I though you'd catch that :D
The 1 was a flight school in Colorado which permitted grass via a ground session with the chief instructor. The pilot would say which airport, what they new of conditions there, what they considered in choosing it, and what procedures they would use to decide it was suitable when they got there. My first grass landing was through them.

The 0.5 is a flight school which permits a grass landing at only one airport and only with an instructor.
 
maybe it's the "best" option they have
or maybe its the best option while maintaining a healthy safety margin for student purposes

I'm reminded of a story...I think I've told it here before so sorry...
Whne I was training and flying out of JGG, an uncontrolled 3,200 ft runway... looks like 60ft wide now, I have no idea if it was the same back in the 1990's...probably was.
Langley AFB had a flying Club, that moved their planes to JGG for a month or so while the runway was being resurfaced.
It made for good airport bum entertainment sitting on the porch watching those folks struggle with the tiny runway and dealing with no ATC.....
I recon that runway looked pretty small from short final when you're used to 10,000ft x 150ft wide
Just like their runway looked like "to infinity and beyond" when I flew some radar contact low approaches to it ;)

for reference, we'd go over the river to Melville for grass strip short and soft field.... not really short as I recall but at least it's a step in the right direction
 
I never really realized how lucky I was to not train with a flight school. Flying off grass is so much fun. My very first flight by myself after I'd soloed was almost 2 hours of touch-n-goes off the grass runway as the sun was going down, and it was awesome.

To bring it back on-topic, my long solo xc included a landing and takeoff on a 1900' grass runway. Combining short and soft field procedures was an interesting challenge for me, and as a student, that runway was definitely short. Did I have to use the whole runway? No, not even close, but it sure felt short at the time. I can't figure out what disadvantage CFIs are doing to their students by exposing them to shorter runways than they are used to flying out of. I know that 1900' is not short in comparison to a 600' sandbar or a 1200' ranch strip, but it is short compared to the nearly 2-mile long runway I did my towered operations from, and even compared to the 2900'-ish grass strip at my home drome. Flying off shorter strips never made me fly sloppy on longer runways.
 
Man, the world of things to worry about for other pilots in training is so huge, I can't start down that path.
 
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)...
Click to expand...
In my Warrior, I wouldn't try a takeoff on a 5000' runway in the dead of winter under those conditions.
 
Last edited:
As a reference. One of my bases, Lone Rock, WI, has an 1850 ft secondary runway. When the main, 5000 ft, runway was down last summer for repaving traffic dropped by about 80% because of a combination of airplanes not being capable of the shorter one and pilots not being comfortable with the shorter one. So, training at 1760 seems entirely reasonable based on this real world observation.
 
rwellner98 said:
As a reference. One of my bases, Lone Rock, WI, has an 1850 ft secondary runway. When the main, 5000 ft, runway was down last summer for repaving traffic dropped by about 80% because of a combination of airplanes not being capable of the shorter one and pilots not being comfortable with the shorter one. So, training at 1760 seems entirely reasonable based on this real world observation.
Click to expand...

Was just out there in the fall for breakfast. Came in on 27 and then winds shifted while we ate and favored 36. Definitely made people think a little more before departure.
 
Where I work, we certainly do not discourage students from taking off and landing on grass. We have two grass runways and will eventually have a third, as well as two paved runways.
 
Clip4 said:
Jeppesen, the most widely used syllabus in the US, disagrees with you and has no grass, short or narrow runway requirement in their private or commercial pilot syllabus.
Click to expand...

So? Doesn't make it right.
 
Eric Pauley said:
Was just out there in the fall for breakfast. Came in on 27 and then winds shifted while we ate and favored 36. Definitely made people think a little more before departure.
Click to expand...

Yeah, between the runway length and staring straight at the hills, it's different than many flatlands airports.
 
Dana said:
So? Doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I’ve landed a 172 with wheel fairings on grass plenty of times, using soft field technique, with no damage.
 
I have landed on some really short landing areas a time or two in my life. The techniques taught to me as a student pilot was a good start for me when I arrived in Alaska.

My thoughts are that practicing short field techniques are a great confidence builder for students. It doesn't matter if the runway is 10,000 ft long or 3000. Just as long as the student can hit the touchdown point and stop within a specified distance. I would have students touch down on the numbers and know that stopping by the 500 footers was doable.

I figure a good instructor will take a student to a runway that is different from the home runway and do a few landings as another confidence builder.
 
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...
Why would a tricycle gear be any more susceptible to wheel fairing damage than a taildragger?

There were nosedraggers with wheel pants here on this day, too, they just weren't worth taking pictures of.

upload_2023-5-4_19-41-51.png
 
To paraphrase a George Carlin bit. Anyone that uses more runway than I do is a moron and anyone that uses less is crazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top