Who else loves short field???

[Shuswap BC]

Short is relevant to the pilot, and the plane they are in. I admire the heck out of Stewartb, I have never done anything like he does. But I also don't have an amazing plane like his. I fly a Bonanza, depending on the runway surface, altitude, temperature, slope, and obstacles, plus how heavy it is at a given time, dictates what I consider short or not. A flat runway, standard temp or below, paved and not covered in ice, well under gross weight, and airport elevation under 2500 asl, short is about 1500 feet long. But last weekend I considered a 2200 footer short, it was a sheet of ice, with an inch plus of snow on it, altitude over 3000 asl, and nasty obstructions at the one end, plus it slopes, so yes I took it seriously despite being 2200 feet long. Braking was a joke, and I landed with a slight breeze on the tail, because it is how they recommend you land there. Some pilots have better skills than me, and might have thought that was really easy, I didn't. Sure it went well, but I didn't just say to myself, "pffft this is a nothing burger".

 

[Stewartb]

My cabin strip is narrow, obstructed by tall trees, and prone to crosswinds. It can be stretched to 1100’ but a rarely use more than 500’ for normal ops. That’s in my Skywagon. The Cub is capable of using a fraction of that but it requires favorable winds. High lift wings make for impressive short ops but they’re a handful in a crossing wind.

A friend with a similar Cub told me something prior to my first flight. He said for a guy who’s used to landing at 55-60mph in the Cessna I was going to be shocked at how slow touching down in the low 20s looks. He was right. He also added that the safety factor of operating this slowly is way better than being three times faster. I guess you have to experience it to believe it.

Normal day, normal load. No stol hero crap. My parking spot is 600’ from the threshold. No hurry to get it down, no need for heavy braking.

 

[Bill Greenwood]

I saw a pilot land his P-51 at Santa Paula and it was less than 3000 ft. He made a normal 3 pt landing, not sure who it was.

 

[Palmpilot]

I didn’t see anybody say anything like that.

I didn't see anyone saying that you have to be "perfectly proficient in every way" to be comfortable with a 2500-foot strip.

 

[Salty]

I didn't see anyone saying that you have to be "perfectly proficient in every way" to be comfortable with a 2500-foot strip.

There has certainly been a lack of understanding of a students perspective (it was a student who posted the thread) in this thread.
How do you think it comes across when you’re new at something and get excited about it and half or more of the responses are “that’s not a thing”?

many people on this thread have either forgotten what it’s like to experience something new, or just don’t care.

 

[Palmpilot]

There has certainly been a lack of understanding of a students perspective (it was a student who posted the thread) in this thread.
How do you think it comes across when you’re new at something and get excited about it and half or more of the responses are “that’s not a thing”?

I think you're reading too much into the responses.

 

[Salty]

I think you're reading too much into the responses.

I think you’re not reading it like the OP would be.

“I just did finished my first marathon in an amazing sub 5 hours!”

Responses: sub 5 hours is amazing?

 

[Palmpilot]

I think you’re not reading it like the OP would be.

“I just did finished my first marathon in an amazing sub 5 hours!”

Responses: sub 5 hours is amazing?

Maybe we should let the OP speak for herself.

I can definitely relate to what she said about its being a satisfying challenge; it's a source of pride that I can relate to. I can also relate to what she said about barely being able to see it from the air. I still have trouble spotting my home field after twenty-eight years! When I'm coming in more-or-less perpendicular to the runway, I usually identify its location by nearby landmarks until I get closer.

 

[EdFred]

I think you're reading too much into the responses.

Salty and I dont agree a lot, but I read it the same way he did. Student pilot experienced something new and exciting to them, and immediately the pants came off and the rulers came out.

 

[ktup-flyer]

I’d state it the other way...treating a 4500-foot runway differently than a 2500-foot runway in most of our GA airplanes is unnecessary and can result in degraded proficiency.

I try to hold myself to <1,000ft. If you can land on the shortest ones, you can land on all of them.

 

[Palmpilot]

Salty and I dont agree a lot, but I read it the same way he did. Student pilot experienced something new and exciting to them, and immediately the pants came off and the rulers came out.

I think you're both reading too much into the responses.

 

[EdFred]

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Sazzy: don't lose your excitement over new flying experiences.

 

[Salty]

Maybe we should let the OP speak for herself.

I can definitely relate to what she said about its being a satisfying challenge; it's a source of pride that I can relate to. I can also relate to what she said about barely being able to see it from the air. I still have trouble spotting my home field after twenty-eight years! When I'm coming in more-or-less perpendicular to the runway, I usually identify its location by nearby landmarks until I get closer.

So unless the OP is willing to argue with people with a lot more experience you won’t think about what or how you post comes across. No wonder there aren’t many new pilots on this forum.

 

[Palmpilot]

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Of course.

Sazzy: don't lose your excitement over new flying experiences.

Amen!

 

[Palmpilot]

So unless the OP is willing to argue with people with a lot more experience you won’t think about what or how you post comes across. No wonder there aren’t many new pilots on this forum.

Hey, I'm not the one who implied that her instructor was doing it wrong!

 

[MauleSkinner]

I didn’t see anybody say anything like that.

A 2500 ft runway requires no more than proficiency in normal landings at the level of the Private Pilot ACS. In a previous post you stated that only a fool doesn’t treat a normal landing differently on a 2500 ft runway vs a 4500 ft runway. How should we take your statement condemning proficiency?

 

[dmspilot]

Student pilot experienced something new and exciting to them, and immediately the pants came off and the rulers came out.

Not really, there was OP and then there was someone else that said it was short for the "vast majority" of pilots (except commercial).

 

[Palmpilot]

I just checked out Fox River Airport on Google Earth. Looks like a fun place. I can see how it could be hard to spot from a distance. I have that problem with Columbia, CA (O22), and it's almost 4700 feet long! I've probably gotten over-dependent on GPS in that regard lately.

 

[Salty]

A 2500 ft runway requires no more than proficiency in normal landings at the level of the Private Pilot ACS. In a previous post you stated that only a fool doesn’t treat a normal landing differently on a 2500 ft runway vs a 4500 ft runway. How should we take your statement condemning proficiency?

At a very minimum, I’m sure there’s more, you should have a different plan for when to go round or when to abort a takeoff on a 2500 foot runway than you do a 4500 foot runway.
They are NOT the same. And you know that very well.
And that is why I changed my answer. It is a short runway, and you need to plan for that. Being proficient doesn’t give your plane more performance.

 

[Palmpilot]

At a very minimum, I’m sure there’s more, you should have a different plan for when to go round or when to abort a takeoff on a 2500 foot runway than you do a 4500 foot runway.

I would agree with that.

 

[MauleSkinner]

At a very minimum, I’m sure there’s more, you should have a different plan for when to go round or when to abort a takeoff on a 2500 foot runway than you do a 4500 foot runway.
They are NOT the same. And you know that very well.
And that is why I changed my answer. It is a short runway, and you need to plan for that.

If you plan to touch down within the parameters of the Private Pilot ACS, and go around if you don’t, there’s no difference.

Most of the pilots I’ve flown with who predicate takeoff decisions on excess runway have a large gap in their planning.

If you accept less precision on a longer runway simply because you have more runway, you’re accepting a lack of proficiency. And you seem to be saying that lack of proficiency is important.

 

[Salty]

If you plan to touch down within the parameters of the Private Pilot ACS, and go around if you don’t, there’s no difference.

Most of the pilots I’ve flown with who predicate takeoff decisions on excess runway have a large gap in their planning.

If you accept less precision on a longer runway simply because you have more runway, you’re accepting a lack of proficiency. And you seem to be saying that lack of proficiency is important.

You know perfectly well that’s not what I’m saying.

 

[Stewartb]

For 25 years I was based at Lake Hood. The strip is 2100' and the pattern is short and tight to keep out of the lake traffic pattern. Visiting pilots are uncomfortable with the pattern, not the runway length. Now I moved to a 3800' strip and the house is 400' from the east end. Landing is simple with a calm or west wind but when east? I fly over the first 3000' and land close to home. The thing about short ops? As already stated? Identify your go-around point and be ready to try again. Sometimes in funky winds it may take a few tries if you get batted around on final. Not a big deal.

 

[MauleSkinner]

You know perfectly well that’s not what I’m saying.

It appears to me you’re saying that Private Pilot level landing proficiency is an unreasonable expectation. If you’re saying something else, I don’t know what it is.

 

[Palmpilot]

If you plan to touch down within the parameters of the Private Pilot ACS, and go around if you don’t, there’s no difference.

Most of the pilots I’ve flown with who predicate takeoff decisions on excess runway have a large gap in their planning.

If you accept less precision on a longer runway simply because you have more runway, you’re accepting a lack of proficiency. And you seem to be saying that lack of proficiency is important.

If I don't set up the final approach properly and excess runway makes the approach salvageable, I will salvage it. That doesn't mean that I accept the lack of proficiency that I displayed in setting up the final.

 

[James331]

Well, as the subject line alludes, today I was introduced to short field takeoffs and landings at this tiny little strip that could barely be seen from the air. I'M HOOKED.

The efficiency of it is so intriguing to me, it's all so quick and precise, it's such a satisfying challenge. Am I strange to find it exciting as opposed to a nuisance?

 

[MauleSkinner]

If I don't set up the final approach properly and excess runway makes the approach salvageable, I will salvage it. That doesn't mean that I accept the lack of proficiency that I displayed in setting up the final.

Depends what you do afterward.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

A 2500 ft runway requires no more than proficiency in normal landings at the level of the Private Pilot ACS. In a previous post you stated that only a fool doesn’t treat a normal landing differently on a 2500 ft runway vs a 4500 ft runway. How should we take your statement condemning proficiency?

I've flown with many people that tend to use as much runway as is available. Unless I really need to get to the far end I land as short as possible without heroics.

 

[Salty]

It appears to me you’re saying that Private Pilot level landing proficiency is an unreasonable expectation. If you’re saying something else, I don’t know what it is.

The faa calls it short field operations. So why are people saying that it’s not short field? To show off.

It is a short field. If you don’t fly proper speeds and approach you can get in trouble you wouldn’t get in on a 4500 foot field.

That is all.

 

[Clip4]

I see no reason to ever use more runway than absolutely necessary, so, as a rule, I've done (with a Skyhawk, mostly) steep approaches and short landings, even with two miles of runway, unless conditions dictated otherwise. Making the acute left turn on to Bravo when landing 3R at KLUK was SOP, as our hangar was just off the end of Bravo, and a long landing would require an extra two-nautical-mile taxi! And every landing is short-field practice.

Usually when people brag about their short field ability at a Class D airport they violated 91.129(e)(3).


(3) Each pilot operating an airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual approach slope indicator must maintain an altitude at or above the glide path until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing.

 

[Clip4]

Detroit is at sea level? Wow the sea levels have risen!

The density altitude there now is -700 ft.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The faa calls it short field operations. So why are people saying that it’s not short field? To show off.

It is a short field. If you don’t fly proper speeds and approach you can get in trouble you wouldn’t get in on a 4500 foot field.

That is all.

Where does the FAA define 2500 feet as “short field operations”?

 

[Sazzy]

Here is the OP speaking for herself:

I appreciate everyone who has shared their own experiences and advice as to how I can become a more proficient pilot performing short field landings, how to practice even when there's a longer runway, etc. New ways to improve keep me enthusiastic about my training. Thank you.

To those of you who felt that 2500 wasn't short enough for me to feel excited about, I feel very sorry for you. I don't know what's missing in your lives that you feel the need to suck the feeling of accomplishment out of a student pilot for learning something new, but I refuse to allow your negative and argumentative opinions to put a damper on my training.

And as for the poster who said it's no wonder there aren't a whole lot of students on these forums, no freakin kidding! I've seen a few other posts from students on here which were met with negative, unfair remarks from more experienced pilots who should be offering constructive comments. If I were to base my desire to fly solely on the way other pilots treat each other, I'd have given it up long ago.

Please, people. Lighten up.

 

[Salty]

Where does the FAA define 2500 feet as “short field operations”?

I'm done arguing with you. You aren't even trying to understand anything I say, so why bother? Have a good day.

 

[Sazzy]

That is not instructing you on risks and mitigation.

And ya know what dude, I was just keeping it short and light. Or did you want me to sit there and type out the entire first half of my lesson where my instructor verbally went over the different procedures for different types of landings and runways, options and responses to emergencies when there is far less room for mistakes, etc. Because he DID. I mean, DANG, I just wanted to quickly and briefly share something I was proud of! Take all the swings that you want at me, but leave my instructor out of it.

 

[Palmpilot]

Depends what you do afterward.

Well, if it turns out to be possible to make a safe landing, I do so, and if not, I go around.

Or did you have something else in mind?

 

[Sazzy]

Well, if it turns out to be possible to make a safe landing, I do so, and if not, I go around.

Or did you have something else in mind?

It would appear that the right thing to do in any given circumstance is just whatever Maule says. Step aside, FAR, there's a new big man on campus.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Well, if it turns out to be possible to make a safe landing, I do so, and if not, I go around.

Or did you have something else in mind?

After you make the long landing or long go around...do you keep doing long landings or long go around a, or do you fix it and put the airplane within 400 feet beyond your target?

 

[Palmpilot]

We probably do argue too much.

At least no one called you a troll. I've seen way too many newcomers receive THAT treatment.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It would appear that the right thing to do in any given circumstance is just whatever Maule says. Step aside, FAR, there's a new big man on campus.

No, just don’t blame me for a $20,000+ landing because you chose not to have a standard.