Teaching On Harder Runways

[killbilly]

The JFK controller/pilot thread and ensuing debate brought up the following quoted posts below, and rather than de-rail that thread, I thought it might be worth a discussion given the varying opinions...I think it falls under a larger topic of how hard training should be.

Originally Posted by Inverted
They want to switch me and a brand new student doing landings onto 25L which is the narrow short runway. I say unable, they ask why, I say student training, so they say ok Cessna 324SP fly runway heading, climb to 2,000 make a right 270 over the field cross overhead, make left traffic for 25R behind the experimental... Really!!!!????? WTF!!!!!!! All that guff because making my student land on the small runway is not only unsafe but would probably make him have a heart attack at this stage of the game.

This is not a callout by a longshot - I've seen/heard some students that wouldn't have been ready for this, and there was a point in my training where I certainly wasn't ready for it, either...I never had this type of experience. It speaks to the overall topic at hand, though, and Inverted, if you know your student isn't ready, he's not ready. Good call on ADM, I say.

Originally posted by Minitour
I did most of my instructing at an airport with a 9000x150 runway. Once I got some experience instructing, I learned not to let them learn to land there. We'd go over to the 2500'x75 (I think 75) airport and do touch and gos. If they learn on that, landing on a 9000' runway is easy.

I started out learning to fly at KTKI (7001' runway) and later we had to move to SWI (4000' runway.) Learning on those runways was relatively easy (in retrospect), even though Larry (my CFI) hammered go around procedures into my head pretty effectively. We went into some "crappy" strips in Oklahoma, too - 37K has lousy asphalt, but still plenty long enough for a 152. Larry loved throwing me curveballs, and anytime ATC at TKI wanted something weird, he always treated it as something new to teach me. I trusted him implicitly, so even though some situations were...."weird", we were still good, in my eyes. We did major crosswind work, too...one of my early (and better landings) was done under his watchful eye in a crosswind that was outside the book values, but still safe. It was fun as hell.

After I earned my PPL, I moved down to Austin, joined the flying club here, and connected with our very own Mike Casey (who is presently learning to fly fighters, the rat bastard.) KAUS has HUGE runways, and while nice, the first thing he did was take me to 6R4 - Bird's Nest. It's being renovated now, but at the time it was a 25' wide, 2500' long asphalt runway with a tree near the approach end of 34.

And THAT is where he drilled me on my checkout flights. It was there I learned that my landing technique could be improved. And on subsequent self-training flights, that's where I went.

Later on in life, I get the TW rating and learn that my rudder control was sloppy and I improve that skill as well.

Point of this topic: while earning my ticket was challenging, I realize now how easy I had it compared to generations of pilots who went before me. In terms of pure stick-and-rudder skills, though, I'm wondering if I wouldn't have been better served as a pilot in learning to fly in a low-tech taildragger on a short field.

The question for discussion: I realize it's not always practical, but do those of you with a plethora of students under your belt feel these conclusions are valid? That the quality of a student's training experience should be based on a foundation of low-tech stick-and-rudder skills on short runways? I'm just wondering if I'm off-base. I think it's valid in my case, but I'm wondering if the collective wisdom is congruent.

 

[BobDDuck]

I learned to fly out of a 2800 foot field. I think if you have the option of starting a student off on a long runway it's great but it should determin how and where you fly with the student.

 

[surreal1221]

5000x100 for my primary training.

But, similar to mini, I was taught by a well versed and old school instructor who made sure I did some grass landings as well as smaller runway landings (2800x75) at least once a week.

 

[ppragman]

I did my primary out of a 2200x75' gravel strip in Anchorage (z41), then we went over to PAMR for touch and goes so my instructor could be sure I wouldn't kill myself when I was first starting out (PAMR is 4000'x150 for the long paved one, and 2640' for the short paved one). Short strips are the key to understanding how to land in my opinion, and nothing over 2000' of runway counts as short unless density altitude is a factor for you there. If you learn how to land on big runways, you learn pretty quick how to make a greaser, come in too fast then just hold the nose off longer and longer eating up more and more runway, then the mains will touch and voila, you're on the ground. If you do that on a strip that's less than 3000' long, you'll start running out of runway a little bit quicker.

In the words of FE Potts, you can have soft landings and short landings, but is it too much to ask for both?

 

[jrh]

Point of this topic: while earning my ticket was challenging, I realize now how easy I had it compared to generations of pilots who went before me. In terms of pure stick-and-rudder skills, though, I'm wondering if I wouldn't have been better served as a pilot in learning to fly in a low-tech taildragger on a short field.

In the time I've been teaching, I've concluded there is no "best" way to teach. There are a lot of good ways, but no single best way.

I'd say learning to fly in a low-tech taildragger on a short field would be a good way to learn certain skills. You'd be very proficient at takeoffs and landings and "feeling" the plane.

But is that all that makes a good pilot?

I don't know. Some people would probably say so. It sure sounds cooler to say you learned in a J-3 at a 2000' grass strip than in a 172 at your local Class D towered airport.

However, I've flown with pilots who have spent most of their time in slow taildraggers and they aren't perfect. Oftentimes, they're pretty mediocre to poor at dealing with airspace and/or radio communications with ATC...that could be a real headache on long trips, or when it comes time to get an instrument rating. If you wanted to transition in to faster, more complex planes, it might take some time. Jumping from say, an Aeronca Champ to a Piper Arrow would be a huge transition for a lot of pilots...not so much for a person going from say, an Archer to an Arrow. You might also have trouble with some of the academics of flying...a lot of the guys who spend all their time flying SuperCubs don't really know/need/care about things like regulations.

Another issue to consider is the location and availability of resources. When I worked in Washington, I could actually teach mountain flying techniques using real mountains, in real high density altitude situations, on real short strips. Obviously none of that happens in Nebraska. Yet most Washingtonians know very little about dealing with thunderstorms, whereas it comes second nature to most pilots in Nebraska. Who is better? I don't know. Great pilots come out of both locations. They do the best they can for the environment they have.


I think no matter how a person is trained, they need to use good judgment and understand there is still a lot more to learn. It doesn't matter what order they learn the skills in. That might mean doing "old school" first and "new school" second, or flip it the other way around and they'd be a good pilot either way.

The important thing is to keep expanding your skills no matter what your background is.

 

[Corporate Pilot]

I learned to fly out of http://obrienairpark.com/index.html. Back then the runway was only 1200 X 12 with 500 feet of grass at each end and nice grass on the sides. No problem if you got off the pavement

When I started teaching out of there it was easy to tell when a student was ready to solo, all they had to do was keep it on the pavement consistently.

We were flying Cubs and 150's mainly.

 

[ralphbrynard]

I earned my PPL out of DTO. All of my time is in tri-cycle geared aircraft, most in DA-20's and a good chunk in a PA-28. a friend of my flies out of BAR-V-K in a '54 cessna 170B with a heavy wing. The first few times I flew with him I felt totally incompetent, because here we were in an old airplane REALLY using pilotage and dead reckoning (when every airplane I have ever flown had at least 2 GNS430's).

One of the things I have learned from flying with him is really getting your head around SA, and not erring environmental factors screw you up (IE. trying to land at an unfamiliar airport at night in gusty winds with about 10-25 degrees of crosswind. Oh, and you only have about 45hrs TT, about 6 of which is PIC). the aforementioned scenario is based on an actual event by the way.

Long story short, we landed hard, and I totally blanked afterward and had to work really hard to try and get my head back in the game.

I guess what I'm saying is that no matter what/where you learn to fly, there will always be pros and cons. I think that sometimes (and definitely with an experienced pilot or instructor) you should go and fly things that are just a little bit outside of your comfort zone just to test what your limitations are within a realm of safety.

 

[dasleben]

I did my primary out of a 2200x75' gravel strip in Anchorage (z41), then we went over to PAMR for touch and goes so my instructor could be sure I wouldn't kill myself when I was first starting out (PAMR is 4000'x150 for the long paved one, and 2640' for the short paved one). Short strips are the key to understanding how to land in my opinion, and nothing over 2000' of runway counts as short unless density altitude is a factor for you there. If you learn how to land on big runways, you learn pretty quick how to make a greaser, come in too fast then just hold the nose off longer and longer eating up more and more runway, then the mains will touch and voila, you're on the ground. If you do that on a strip that's less than 3000' long, you'll start running out of runway a little bit quicker.

In the words of FE Potts, you can have soft landings and short landings, but is it too much to ask for both?

Agreed. Always landing on long runways can create some bad habits. I learned at an airport with I wanna say one 7500' runway and something like a 4000' runway. I was terrified of anything smaller than 4000' for the longest time because I thought it was "short." Never got any experience to tell me otherwise.

Broke that fear on IOE at my current company after landing with 6 passengers and a check airman at 6500 lbs on 33R in BOS (2557'). Nothing teaches you about precise speed control and adherence to Vref better than that.

 

[Roger, Roger]

I think students need to be exposed to a variety of runways. Though, doing the pre-solo stuff on longer runways makes for a substantially fewer "oh crap" moments for the instructor, and also helps with teaching proper flare technique and attitude. Once a student is past the pre-solo, they NEED to go to shorter runways and even real grass runways if your company policy/insurance allow it.

 

[stesta5074]

On my first student solo, around 25 aircraft arrived into Scottsdale. I had to make 10 360's and maintain 3000'. I had 11 hours total time...

Wasn't scary, just do it

 

[vikingair]

Home airport is 12,000 x 150 and is so freakishly large its worthless for training other than that you can get 4-5 landings on a single pass. Luckily 5 miles out is a series of runways that decrease in size. Starting on the 5k followed by successively working our way down to the 2800 x 30 gives them a good awareness of visual clues, emphasis on procedures/airspeed control and hammers in the input-adjust circle.. We might even be able to get into something shorter but with 112 HP only one of us is flying out.

I think good instruction includes exposing students to as many different scenarios and settings as possible. If a student doesn't get into environments that are beyond their ability WITH an instructor on board..when should they?

 

[BaronPete]

In the time I've been teaching, I've concluded there is no "best" way to teach. There are a lot of good ways, but no single best way.

I'd say learning to fly in a low-tech taildragger on a short field would be a good way to learn certain skills. You'd be very proficient at takeoffs and landings and "feeling" the plane.

But is that all that makes a good pilot?

I don't know. Some people would probably say so. It sure sounds cooler to say you learned in a J-3 at a 2000' grass strip than in a 172 at your local Class D towered airport.

However, I've flown with pilots who have spent most of their time in slow taildraggers and they aren't perfect. Oftentimes, they're pretty mediocre to poor at dealing with airspace and/or radio communications with ATC...that could be a real headache on long trips, or when it comes time to get an instrument rating. If you wanted to transition in to faster, more complex planes, it might take some time. Jumping from say, an Aeronca Champ to a Piper Arrow would be a huge transition for a lot of pilots...not so much for a person going from say, an Archer to an Arrow. You might also have trouble with some of the academics of flying...a lot of the guys who spend all their time flying SuperCubs don't really know/need/care about things like regulations.

Another issue to consider is the location and availability of resources. When I worked in Washington, I could actually teach mountain flying techniques using real mountains, in real high density altitude situations, on real short strips. Obviously none of that happens in Nebraska. Yet most Washingtonians know very little about dealing with thunderstorms, whereas it comes second nature to most pilots in Nebraska. Who is better? I don't know. Great pilots come out of both locations. They do the best they can for the environment they have.


I think no matter how a person is trained, they need to use good judgment and understand there is still a lot more to learn. It doesn't matter what order they learn the skills in. That might mean doing "old school" first and "new school" second, or flip it the other way around and they'd be a good pilot either way.

The important thing is to keep expanding your skills no matter what your background is.

Great post! :clap:

 

[minitour]

I think students need to be exposed to a variety of runways. Though, doing the pre-solo stuff on longer runways makes for a substantially fewer "oh crap" moments for the instructor, and also helps with teaching proper flare technique and attitude. Once a student is past the pre-solo, they NEED to go to shorter runways and even real grass runways if your company policy/insurance allow it.

I think if I were starting with a noob today, I'd do the exact opposite. I'd get them to the point of solo at the short and narrow strip, doing crosswind landings, touch and gos, bla bla bla. After that, we'll do the cross countries and I'll have them land on specific spots on the runway using various configurations and approach speeds.

If they can land on 2700'x75', they can land on 12,000'x200'. Gur'n'dam'tee't.

-mini

 

[swisspilot]

I started my flight training on a military airport, the airport had 3 parallel runways, 2 grass and a paved one.

One of the grass was used for gliders (airforce cadet program), the other that was in the center for the military jumpers and the Helis, both for taking off with the planes and for the skydivers to land on it. The paved was used for the airforce fighters and the PA28s we use to fly.

The airport was in the middle of a valley, it had a crazy way of flying the pattern. http://www4.ti.ch/fileadmin/DT/temi/aeroporto/documenti/Visual_100000.jpg

I started flying there and it was really overwhelming, before going to the US I had no idea what cross wind was...so used of flying in valleys

 

[ProudPilot]

I think if I were starting with a noob today, I'd do the exact opposite. I'd get them to the point of solo at the short and narrow strip, doing crosswind landings, touch and gos, bla bla bla. After that, we'll do the cross countries and I'll have them land on specific spots on the runway using various configurations and approach speeds.

If they can land on 2700'x75', they can land on 12,000'x200'. Gur'n'dam'tee't.

-mini

I have to disagree with you mini. A well rounded student is the ideal student. However, runway lengths don't matter. The approach control in terms of airspeed and track to the runway are the most important. Too fast, too slow, or off course will give you a consistent go around.

Have them learn the basics on a long wide runway and give them that aim point and force them to stay on centerline. Teach them the ability to manage a crosswind, and then once they are ready, go to short narrow strips and show them the difference. That's a better student.

A scared student learns slower. An optimistic one learns faster, and a student that enjoys the learning will retain the knowledge for a lifetime.

 

[TXaviator]

pfft. just throw them in here and if they can do it, they win.

 

[KLB]

pfft. just throw them in here and if they can do it, they win.

A couple of my former students do land there and I hear that it's one of the more easier places they land. :bandit:

I've seen a video of one of them landing on an unimproved strip on the side of a mountain.

 

[BillErvin]

I learned to fly out of http://obrienairpark.com/index.html. Back then the runway was only 1200 X 12 with 500 feet of grass at each end and nice grass on the sides. No problem if you got off the pavement

When I started teaching out of there it was easy to tell when a student was ready to solo, all they had to do was keep it on the pavement consistently.

We were flying Cubs and 150's mainly.

I love that place, I'm just to the west at Eagles Nest. First time it went in there was as a passenger in a Gullwing Stinson.

 

[CFIscare]

In my opinion, it's all mental. If you can land accurately on a specific spot on a long runway, you can land on a short runway. It shouldn't matter either way, you just have to expose your student to various runways so they can get their confidence up.

If you do land on long runways, if they aren't on airspeed or glideslope, make them go-around. Have them aim for a specific point on the runway. I'm more worried about their procedures than how big the runway is. I feel this can be just as beneficial to the progress of the student as if you are landing on a smaller runway.

 

[minitour]

I have to disagree with you mini. A well rounded student is the ideal student.

I never said anything to the contrary.

However, runway lengths don't matter.

They sure as hell do! Students that trained with other instructors at my home airport would crap themselves when we'd go down to the 4000' runway to the south.

4000'!!!

Let's not even try the 2500' runway.

There's a level of confidence that gets built when you start off hitting the short strips.

Have them learn the basics on a long wide runway and give them that aim point and force them to stay on centerline. Teach them the ability to manage a crosswind, and then once they are ready, go to short narrow strips and show them the difference. That's a better student.

"Better" huh? Right.

You can't teach anything on a 12,000' runway that I can't teach on a 2500' runway in a typical trainer. Your student can't learn anything mine can't. If you can't teach students on short runways, you should get some additional training yourself and figure out where you're struggling.

A scared student learns slower.

When they're a brand noob...they don't know to be scared of a short strip. Only after landing long on a 9000' runway do they learn to fear a 3500' runway. They learn that on their own.


-mini