I'm looking for advice on soft field landings.

I've done lots of practice of the softfield technique on a hard surface: full flaps, slower approach speed, keep the nose wheel off, but I have never actually landed on a soft/grass strip.

Is this a safe for solo thing or should I go with an instructor/senior pilot first?

If you choose to do this on your own check with an instructor or another knowledgable pilot about conditions of the strip to which you plan to go - wet weather/spring etc cause mud, puddles, etc, so be smart and choose a time of year and approved strip that gives you ideal conditions. (The place where you rent may have some restrictions on where you can go also.)

I always had my students backtrack after landing for the takeoff, & only to do touch & goes if the strip was quite long with no obstacles on the takeoff end. Be prepared to use lots of power to taxi, keep the stick full back, and watch out for gopher holes.

When I was instructing I always made a point to go with my PPL students to do at least one grass field landing just for the "real" experience... great place to fit it in is when you do diversions/precautionary landings... hint hint to you instructors out there...

COD Father:

Chipmunks advice is good, but I'll give you some that's a bit better. Take an instructor the first time you try it. Let me ammend that. Take an instructor that has some experience with really operating off a soft field. If nothing else it may set your mind at ease.
Now, a bit of a rant as an aside. What's up with the college programs and soft fields? I've had numerous instructor candidates from both the college programs here in Ontario. I take them to Greenbank and make them do a T/O + landing on a real grass field. The vast majority of them tell me that was the first time they had been on and off grass. So here is the question to the powers that be at the colleges: A lot of your graduates are going to be working off of grass (or worse) strips for their first jobs, why aren't you preparing them?

I expect the replies to be interesting.

" The vast majority of them tell me that was the first time they had been on and off grass. "

Maybe TC and these College's with their high end instructional programs should have Instructor ratings graded based on the pilots knowlege and ability to fly....

...such as ...

valid for all single engine light nose wheel aircraft and light tail wheel aircraft both hard and soft runways.

Hell that would satisfy the student as to the skills level of any instructor they were given.

What do all you instructor types think of that idea???

Cat

Well.
dont know if i can tell ya much about colleges and their ideas of taking students in a grass strip and actualy getting them some stick and rudder experince in a grass strip...they just seem to make up stupid reasons to not to, when there isnt one reason why you shouldnt take a student into a grass strip..

I personaly worked for one of those colleges and they prefered it if we didnt but i agree most of the guys that came out of colleges never actually been to a Grass strip through out their training.....(doesnt mean all college students but most of them havent)

The reason i was given by the cfi was that If the instructor does it with the students well then, the students are bound to go there on their own and actualy somehow get themselfs into trouble doing it becuase the lack of experince and what not so i d rather not.........take that root...


Well my comment was if the students wants to go in a grass strip without the instructor well nothing is stoping them now from doing it and not saying anything about it.......but here is the difference
1..Student goes into a grass strip on his own for the first time, without an instructor, count how many un nessasery uncontrolled risks they are taking by doing that....If they want to do it they will do it with or without your concent...

2..I would rather take them there myself give them the practice they should have on a grass strip witout haveing to play the guessing game, and make sure that they are safe and can make the decsions on their own...so when they do decide to go there on their own against everyones will at least they ve done it before with me.....

Thats like saying we wont teach the entry, recognition, and recovery from spins just becuase students may actualy go out there and do it on their own and get themselfs in trouble becuase of their inexperince ......

CFI 's comment was....too much trouble and i am sure they'll learn on their own when they are out there in the real world.......

I mean look at this posting, you ve got a student asking or even having the thought cross his/her mind to weather it is advisable to go into a grass striip on their own for the first time.......Its not his/her fault for asking...I am glade they did ask so at least they can get some inputs from someone...


I have no idea where some of these people get their loggic from but its whats out their in the industry today.
The industry today is training pilots to just pass the damm flight test.....

Ive said it before and i'll say it again....You can teach a monkey to fly if you had enough bannanas...........


cheers

Because the instructors themselves have very little (if any) grass field experience. Also from my own experience, one of the hardest things for me to get used to as an instructor was grass field ops with a student. Not entirely sure why it made me so nervous, but now it's old hat.

I'd go with an instructor first - if the field is a suitable one, it really should be a non-event. The only time we've ever had a problem doing off-strip landings, it was with an inexperienced student going solo into a field that was dug up pretty good by groundhogs - the student failed to keep the nose up on the landing roll and stuffed the nose gear into the firewall pretty hard...some pretty significant damage.

So as long as the field selection is good, shouldn't be an issue...we take all of our commercial students into soft fields - they always get a kick out of it and it's a valuable exercise for sure.

Now's a good time to try landing on patchy ice, or packed snow runways (with wheels). Grass is easy, those are a little harder, especially if there's a strong X-wind.

It would seem that ignorance is the norm for flying training.

How elsw can you explain the simple fact that landing on grass runways is easier than landing on paved runways, yet we have this discussion taking up Avcanada's band width.

Cat

Speaking of grass landing being easier than paved, an added advantage is that the grass cushions any hard landings (not that any of mine are hard)

At least your not ignorant RSC.

Cat

I am with Cat Driver on this one. I remember doing a C 182 check out on a 300 hr CPL. Having never met the guy before I thought I should ask a few questions

Q What other aircraft have you flown

A All my flying was in a C172

Q How much solo X country experience do you have

A About 50 hrs

Q How much to an airport further than 100 miles from your home field

A Long pause.. maybe 10 hrs

Q Have you ever landed at at a runway shorter than 5000 ft

A No

Q An unpaved runway ?

A No

Q Have you ever flown when the reported flight visibilty was less than 5 miles

A No.

Q The ceiling less than 1000 ft ?

A No


He was a nice guy, had a good attitude and OK stick and rudder skills. He also had a shiny new Commercial license because he met all the requirements, Yet he did not have the slightest idea about the real world of flying the line. Untill TC wakes up it is up to the instructor to teach what students really need to know. Unfortunately alot just seem to be mindlessly following the FTG

grass...the best way to land, except for water, of course. Some academies/ colleges are piss poor in teaching real flying, like grass. I had to check out one of my INSTRUCTORs in cross winds & grass...because they "never did that in college" huh? why the hell not?
i guess i didn't really help answer your question, did i...oh well.

once you go grass, you'll never go back.

I found the best grass strip if anyone in Ontario is intersted. On the shore of Rice Lake south east of peterborough there is a small lodge with a restaurant and bar. I forget the name but no PPR and the food good. The owners are pilots and they welcome anyone who wants to stop by. On final from the north east you have to fly through a cut out in a row of trees at the threshold. then as you touch down you can't see the other end of the runway because of a big hump right in the middle of the runway. To add to the excitement the runway is also on a gentle slope from right to left, that is flattened out for the runway portion. I highly recomend this to anyone who enjoys grass strips, or to anyone wanting a good experience learning soft field T/O and landings. The field is well maintained and the bartender (owner/pilot) will gladly point out every little grass strip for you in southern ontario.

Grass strip?

The North South runway at Volk Ontario. You either need big balls or small brains to fly out of there. I'm not sure which I've got.

anyone ever been to "Bearbrook International"?

Part of the problem with going off pavement is the risk of prop strikes and damaged nose gear with tricycles. That increased risk is a direct result of the sloppy ground handling taught or tolerated by most flying schools. Stand on the apron and watch how many tricycle pilots land on all three. Then watch what almost all do with their elevator on roll out and taxi. If I was renting out a 172 I wouldn't let 90% of the lowish time pilots out there go off a hard surface either.

Wilbur :

They have to land on the nose wheel, because if they raise the nose they can't see the far end of the runway, like they are being taught.

Cat

The stick and rudder skills of most low-time pilots are simply atrocious.

Sit and simply watch private pilots approach and land. Often as not, they will approach much too fast, float at least a thousand feet down the runway, and rarely stay anywhere near the centerline. Hard on the brakes, nose oleo fully depressed, yuck.

Don't get me started on crosswind landings.

It boggles the mind how badly most people are taught, and what a very low level of skill is considered acceptable. I guess these days people don't care much about stick & rudder skills - all they want to be is union-due-paying digital systems managers on plastic jets. Pardon me while I barf on your shoes.

This is the thing I always get a kick out of here - we always have people deriding the skills of low time pilots, yet we are also constantly harping on instructors and schools who have pilots who make their students take a little bit longer than the 45hr min to complete a licence. The fact of the matter is most people I know who want to or are taking their licence want to get it done as cheap as possible and are only meeting the requirements just to pass the flight test. Same might be said of the commercial licence as well. Its a mindset which unfortunately prevails in today's society, but I digress.

In the case of the soft field, I find most are interested solely of learning the technique just good enough to pass a flight test - I've only ever had three students come back and ask to do more work on the subject to perfect the technique. In my opinion the soft field is one of the funnest of the excersises. If you really want good experience in it go out on the runway before the snow is cleared someday - 6" of snow really makes a difference to that take off roll if you have only wheels. You'll find that your usual 3000' might not be enough if you're not doing it right. Take someone who knows what they're doing if you've never tried it before. The landing is fun too - be on the ball or you might find yourself doing some shovelling.

Wanting to complete training in the basic 45 hours is not a reason for sloppy airmanship. It is no more difficult, and takes no longer to teach someone, to land on the mains and progressively keep the yoke back on roll-out. I managed to learn it when a PPL was only 35 hours and I don't think I'm any too special. I think it mostly has to do with pilots landing and taxiing like they are driving a car. Students don't see a need for, or make the connection to keeping the yoke back on landing because they are not taught to do it taxiing to and from the runway. It's just get the wheels on the ground anyway you can and drive with your feet.

That's why learning to fly a taildragger can be such a positive experience in terms of skill development. It is simply not possible to disregard your yoke/stick during taxi. With a taildragger, you are on a continuum from the time you start the engine until you have parked. With a tricycle, you can get away with completely disconnecting the flying and taxiing phases; and that is what seems to be getting taught these days.

here's how I see it:

My training consists of 2 years at a college, where I learned 10% of my flying skills.

After, 6 months of float and bush strip training taught me 90% of my flying skills.

I always felt that a student cannot learn effectively if s/he is too restricted. I think that training should give a taste of the real world.

(btw great point earlier on comparing it with spin training)

I always found grass to be easier anyway!

What seems to get lost in these discussions about poor landing skills is the simple fact that it is better to teach the correct methods right from the start. Using the excuse of only having 45 hours to teach the basics in is a cop out. We received our PPL's in 30 hours flying tail wheel airplanes, hell most class ones today can't even figure out how to taxi one let alone fly it.

Unfortunately many flight instructors were never taught the correct skills therefore they are incapable of teaching something they do not understand.

As for the test examiners who accept these sloppy teaching methods, that is getting closer to the root cause of the problem....ignorant test examiners = ignorant pilots.

It's really quite elementary.

Cat

p.s., great post Big Pistons Forever

I thought so, too ... but remember, according to Transport, VFR with less than 5 miles vis or 1000 foot ceiling is considered reckless and/or negligent, even though it might be technically legal with respect to the applicable legislation.