Comments on: Overrun!

By: Oswaldo Busby

Oswaldo Busby — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:15:42 +0000

First off great page. Im unsure if it has been talked about, but when using Chrome I can never get the entire page to load without refreshing several times. Maybe just my laptop. Thanks

By: David Wartofsky

David Wartofsky — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:21:07 +0000

People sometimes ask why I put ‘Field Carrier Landing Practice’ FCLP aircraft markings on my runway.

Here are some of my reasons:

1. Its so familiar to most of our Potomac pilots, it makes them feel more at home.

2. Last time I did a touch and go on a carrier in the Chesapeake in my Cessna Skymaster, a lot of people got pissed off.

3. I like the idea of Flight Service having to explain it to everyone who calls.

4. Every pilot wonders if they could land on a carrier; so at Potomac, they can actually try.

5. Just to have some fun!

6 All of the above.

David Wartofsky

By: Jim Diehl

Jim Diehl — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:34:00 +0000

I also fly out of Lee Airport in Annapolis and look forward to hearing John and AOPA talk about this visualization effort next month. Last June, I completed the Colorado Pilots Assocation Mountain Flying Course flying out of the highest airports in the United Stated. CPA teaches a “75/50″ for takeoffs where density altitude (runway length) may cause a problem. Identify the mid-point of the runway. If you have not reached 75 percent of takeoff speed by the mid-point, then abort the take-off. This concept gives us a single-engine takeoff decision speed, related to runway length. It works at sea-level fields too!

By: Cary Alburn

Cary Alburn — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:18:02 +0000

I worry about adding complexity to a really pretty simple situation, and I agree that less bureaucratic nonsense and better training are the solutions, not markers that vary from airport to airport. We tend to tolerate mediocrity in ourselves and in others, and there’s no place for mediocrity on a short strip. While a mediocre pilot can get away with it on a long runway, he/she needs to practice and become proficient before landing on a shorter strip.

Years ago, I regularly flew a 172 into a private strip at Sundance, WY, which was 2100′ long, sloped, and at 5000′ elev. While not a big deal to any back country pilot, it was challenging enough to me early in my flying career that before leaving for it, I would do a series of landings at my home airport (LAR) using the 1000′ markers as my “runway”. Later as I accumulated experience, that prep was less necessary, and I had no trouble putting higher performance airplanes into it (T210, Mooney 231), using less than half the runway before having to add a little power just to taxi to the parking area.

The key to any short field operation is the same key to good landings in any environment, airspeed control. Practicing every landing as if it is on a short field, using proper airspeed control (remember 1.3 Vso?), then the real short fields won’t be an issue.

Cary

By: Andrew Walton

Andrew Walton — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:38:09 +0000

My first solo was out of a 2400′ strip with 60′ trees 10 feet from the threshold and 40′ trees on the other end.

We regularly trained students to fly there and used two sets of cones as the land/go-around decision point. If you weren’t down by the first set of cones, you went around. Period.

By: David Andersen

David Andersen — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:06:19 +0000

I don’t really understand what’s magical about touching down in the first third of the runway. None of the airplanes I’ve ever flown reference that in their performance data, nor does it guarantee enough runway remaining to stop the airplane safely, even if “the book” does consider the runway long enough for your airplane. If “the book” has us touching down at the 800-ft point from over a 50-ft obstacle, why accept the 1000-ft point with no obstacle?

I think it would be far more appropriate to teach pilots how to relate their own performance to that of the AFM, and make appropriate determinations as to the point they need to be firmly on the ground based on that. I also think this is one area where we fail as instructors. In my opinion, every takeoff and landing in training should be computed, and actual performance compared to the theoretical. This would give pilots a solid basis both for determining the suitability of a particular runway, as well as how to determine whether they’re touching down within the performance-required distance instead of an arbitrary fraction of the runway that’s really meaningless.

By: Andy Crane

Andy Crane — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:05:50 +0000

Another good idea that will create so much additional bureaucracy not to mention another tool to decrease skills. Lawsuits filed by pilots and/or their heirs
because some idiot landed long on a runway without the 1/3 markers, lawsuits because they hit the 1/3 marker with the wrong weight and balance or the wrong allowance for that aircraft’s performance numbers. You should have been able to demonstrate the ability land within the 1st third of the runway on your check ride and you should have improved that skill over time. We don’t need markers.

By: David

David — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:36:12 +0000

In the future, when some sort of autoland on the numbers is a standard feature in GA, people will still be trying to figure out how to get hurried, lazy or overly confident pilots to check the weather and notams, have appropriate charts, and do a complete pre-flight. Have any ideas for that?

By: chase reid

chase reid — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:59:28 +0000

I’ve always remembered a comment by my first instructor at FYV: “Two things of no use to a pilot are the air above you and the runway behind you.”

By: steve austin

steve austin — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:13:01 +0000

Great idea. Simple but very effective.