Why no soft field instructions in POH?

dmccormack said:
Not everyone is an independently wealthy vagabond with no ties to work, family, or place...

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm sometimes envious of Henning's footloose-and-fancy-free life, but I wouldn't trade my family for it.










Well, not very often, anyway.
Happiness is different for different people.
 
Learn your soft field landings well. On my check ride, my examiner said take us to Kidwell (IL4), we were at Sun Valley (A20). That was my first landing with my examiner, a long dirt runway in the desert. I got lucky, I aced it. I had never landed on an actual soft field before. That was a sand runway, they were serious about "soft".

John
 
dmccormack said:
My Primary instructor always strung the two together: "We're going to do shorts and softs today..."

For at least a week I thought it was all in the same.

After one particularly firm arrival on Keller Brothers I turned and said, "This doesn't need to be short, does it?"

"No, this is a soft. But most softs are short."

So I just made everything a short.
Click to expand...

Short and soft landings aren't really compatible technique wise although it is common that when a soft field landing is needed, the field is also somewhat short, especially if you consider anything less than 3000 ft in a 172 to be short for a flatlands strip.

I think it's useful to consider (and compare) the goals of each. For a soft field landing the goals are to touch down with minimum sink and about as slowly as possible, preventing the nosewheel from digging in on a tricycle or preventing the tail from coming up with conventional gear. More often that not if the field is truly soft, the rollout distance won't be a problem because the soft ground offers considerably more drag than a firm surface. And IME if a soft field is anywhere close to being "short" for the airplane/conditions a takeoff is probably impossible unless the plane is seriously overpowered.

For a short field landing, a firm "arrival" is desired and any attempt to soften the touchdown to much less than what it takes to bounce (or damage the airplane) is counterproductive WRT to the landing distance. It is true that minimizing the speed at touchdown is important for both kinds of landings but IME it's far more crucial for short field work where even a few knots of excess speed can lengthen the rollout enough to matter. Also, the airspeed on approach is also much more important on a short field because any excess there will likely result in touching down nose low or floating past the intended touchdown point.
 
John Baker said:
Learn your soft field landings well. On my check ride, my examiner said take us to Kidwell (IL4), we were at Sun Valley (A20). That was my first landing with my examiner, a long dirt runway in the desert. I got lucky, I aced it. I had never landed on an actual soft field before. That was a sand runway, they were serious about "soft".

John
Click to expand...

Boy, that'd be cool...I'd be concerned about those oleo struts and bearings and all that crap. Having zero experience with operating in such an environment, is that a legitimate concern?
 
I'm not buying all the comments that a short field landing must be firm if done right.

I get that sometimes you can't quite get the speed and altitude nailed to not have to "chop and drop" a bit to hit your mark, but that just means you need more practice.

Short is just that. Short. And on the spot you wanted it on. There's no need to pound the airframe into the pavement to do it.

A solid arrival and all the weight on the mains for braking, yes. (Dump the flaps too.)

"Firm" or even "hard"? Not necessary when done right.
 
gismo said:
Short and soft landings aren't really compatible technique wise although it is common that when a soft field landing is needed, the field is also somewhat short, especially if you consider anything less than 3000 ft in a 172 to be short for a flatlands strip.
Click to expand...

What I basically do is treat every final approach as short with regards to carrying low energy and if I need to arrest my sink at the bottom to 'soften' things, I'll just add a touch of throttle into the flare to get me what I want. How much field I have left determines how much throttle I can use.
 
denverpilot said:
I'm not buying all the comments that a short field landing must be firm if done right.

I get that sometimes you can't quite get the speed and altitude nailed to not have to "chop and drop" a bit to hit your mark, but that just means you need more practice.

Short is just that. Short. And on the spot you wanted it on. There's no need to pound the airframe into the pavement to do it.

A solid arrival and all the weight on the mains for braking, yes. (Dump the flaps too.)

"Firm" or even "hard"? Not necessary when done right.
Click to expand...
Maybe I overstressed the "firm" part (the bit about barely not damaging the airplane was intended to be taken as tongue in cheek), my point was that if the field is short (and not overly soft) you are likely to waste precious runway if you attempt a greaser. And even if you don't float and just touch down extremely lightly (as one would attempt for soft field) you're going to roll "lightly" for some distance that could have provided more drag and opportunity for braking had you planted the airplane "firmly". IOW just because your wheels touched exactly where you intended near the approach end of the runway doesn't mean your subsequent rollout won't be lengthened if the weight on the wheels is minimal for the first 100 feet. Again, I thought I was talking about goals and I still maintain that for a short (not soft) landing a "reasonably" firm touchdown should be a goal and a very soft one should not.

Now if you have enough runway that wasting some touching down as smoothly as possible leaves plenty for stopping (often the case simply because most airplanes need more runway to take of than to land), greasing it on is fine but I wouldn't call that an optimal short field" technique. I've taken my Baron in and out of sub 2000 foot grass runways and I can say with near certainty that if I spend an extra 5-10 seconds gliding over the runway while reducing my vertical speed from a normal or steep descent to much less than 100 FPM (required for a soft touchdown) I could easily waste a substantial fraction of the runway as I'm going to be averaging over 100 ft for every one of those seconds.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure the soft should even be in the PTS. Few understand it, and if the field is soft enough to warrant concern the average joe shouldn't be operating there. How soft is soft? Etc. Etc.
 
Ironically the only serious use of soft field techniques I've ever needed was to get our poor nosewheel off the ground on really hard rough dry turf or dirt runways with patchy grass.

Hold the nosewheel off and let it fly off in ground effect.

Maybe they should just call it crappy runway procedures. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
Ironically the only serious use of soft field techniques I've ever needed was to get our poor nosewheel off the ground on really hard rough dry turf or dirt runways with patchy grass.

Hold the nosewheel off and let it fly off in ground effect.

Maybe they should just call it crappy runway procedures. ;)
Click to expand...
I think "rough surface takeoff" procedure might catch on better. In floatplane flying there's a related "rough water takeoff" procedure which usually involves full flaps and lifting off at the lowest possible speed with the nose held high. Fortunately on water the "rough field" is usually accompanied by a rather strong headwind which facilitates liftoff at a very low "groundspeed". On land that would translate into waiting for a big wind down the runway before departing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top