Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

How to build a new grass strip

It’s worth talking to a seed merchant about grass varieties, the object being minimum leaf growth with maximum self-repairing by rhisomes.

And just as a cherry on top, if the whole runway is to be resown, one may well choose a grass of different colour from the surrounding vegetation, especially if surrounding landmarks are scarce and runway recognition is a problem. Another interesting thing may happen in the future – for now it’s still an experiment in its early stages, but in a decade or two there may finally be genetically modified lawn grass available that glows in the dark.

LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

You might even produce proper ICAO style runway markings with that technique! But if the magnetic variation changes and you have to redo the numbers, you then have a problem.

Is it so much more expensive to pave the runway? Or are there other obstacles? My dream is to have my own runway next to our summer house in France. The French don’t object (the mayor) if it is initially for MLA type of aircraft (which I do not fly) but apart from getting the permission, I dream about being able to turn on my own lights from the cockpit and land on my own strip using my own GPS approach, so I can fly out and in more or less independent of the weather.

What are my challenges in getting this done?

EDLE, Netherlands

AeroPlus wrote:

Is it so much more expensive to pave the runway? Or are there other obstacles?

It is more expensive but not decisively so. Primarily, the obstacles are political. Most local politicians these days are in the anti-airfield – anti – aviation league and use banter against the airfield as political points. Psychologically speaking, a grass field is something which can be demolished and ploughed over in an afternoon, once there is a concrete runway, it is literally set in stone and much more difficult to get rid of.

The perverse thing is: most of those populist dirtbags will throw dirt at the airfield in their campaigns but after election be very careful not to damage the airfield more than they have to to “show that they are doing something”. Because if it really was to disappear, they will lack the enemy they need for their next campaign.

It’s been this kind of banter, underhanded b.s. which has caused me to get very angry at these people quite often. If I had the possibility, I’d probably move to a country where aviation is less disputed. Seeing how Europe now starts to freak out and ban motorcars from 2030 and similar utter crap, maybe moving to North America becomes a lot more attractive again.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

You could get a 650×18m tarmac runway done for a few hundred k, assuming a decent base. But that would be for aircraft up to say 2000kg. A proper job, enough for a small bizjet, would be millions.

Bear in mind tarmac is “cheaper” because it can be so much shorter and narrower. Most SEPs can operate from 500m (Switzerland is full of those) although 650 is much better. Whereas 500m of grass is very limiting.

OTOH taildraggers prefer grass, not least because they don’t have so much directional control so 30m of grass is vastly better than 18m of tarmac. I am sure this splits a lot of pilot communities who would otherwise go for tarmac.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Mooney_Driver wrote:

…maybe moving to North America becomes a lot more attractive again.

And you really think that in one of the US states which are as densely populated as our part of the world you will be allowed to concrete your own runway behind your house? Or in those few parts of California which are actually beautiful? The same people live there as in Cannes… with the same attitude towards aircraft noise. And AFAIK California will ban combustion engine driven cars long before our part of the world.
The big freedom in the United States can be found in places like Idaho or Montana which are inhabited by one cow per square mile who really doesn’t mind what others are doing with their aeroplanes…
One guy who started flying with me a long time ago moved to Canada with this light twin in search of the big freedom. He had his own airstrip there, about as much land as a small town around here, everything. He came back only five years later, bored to death and never complained again about our lack of flying freedom.

But you don’t have to go as far as America if you want your own grass strip. Eastern Germany has dozens of them, formerly used for agricultural flying. Minimum one kilometer long. Unused since 25 years, but so well made (many of them have these perforated steel plates underneath) that only grass cutting will be required to get them operational again. Some of them are said to be even stronger because they were intended as emergency landing sites for Eastern Block fighters. If you want to reactivate one of those, nobody will object. No one is living there who will complain. Houses and entire estates are available in the vicinity at prices for which you could not even buy a single room in an appartment in Zürich.

EDDS - Stuttgart

Haha… this is possibly true. You can do whatever you want in the middle of nowhere! Of course you pay a price :-).

I will say that even near big cities, aviation is much more open. This becomes obvious when you start comparing the costs, aviation is much less expensive in North America (half price or less). There are lots of hangars, lots of aircraft, and the system seems to work very well.

Coming from abroad, I am occasionally asked if it is ‘better’ living in North America. I usually extol the different benefits of living in either NA or the UK/Europe, and then suggest that unless you are into nature and freedom (i.e. moutain biking, climbing, hiking, etc.) a British or European person might find it pretty boring (New York / California excepted). Consequently, as none of my London colleagues are specifically interested in the outdoors, I have to admit that I would never recommend that they move to Canada.

If I were to move back to North America, I would be quite selective on the location. You can thread the needle between something remote enough for unlimited and unrestricted flying, but close enough to a big city that you can stay entertained and have access to the World via an international airport.

One other avenue is float flying. You don’t need to maintain a runway and there are very few restrictions on seaplanes. You can have a very nice waterfront property, in a desirable location which is not remote. You just need something to hoist the airplane out of the water.

Last Edited by Canuck at 16 Oct 15:23
Sans aircraft at the moment :-(, United Kingdom

what_next wrote:

But you don’t have to go as far as America if you want your own grass strip. Eastern Germany has dozens of them, formerly used for agricultural flying. Minimum one kilometer long. Unused since 25 years, but so well made (many of them have these perforated steel plates underneath) that only grass cutting will be required to get them operational again. Some of them are said to be even stronger because they were intended as emergency landing sites for Eastern Block fighters.

That thought has occurred to me and (don’t tell my wife) in many ways I prefer eastern Germany over western Germany. I’m surprised nobody has tried to build residential airports around those ex-DDR airports, which are BTW the easiest way to live in a scenic or populated area of the US and fly from your house.

The only place I could imagine in living and flying full time in Europe today, personally, is Italy (or maybe Croatia) with a UL style aircraft to fly from a nice grass field that doesn’t get much attention from the authorities. Money would come from the bank, sourced from US investments. It might happen someday, if only for a year or so.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 16 Oct 15:29

New grass airstrips seem to have no serious problems in Scotland. And one seems to be almost all-weather. But most are wet restricted, to some extent.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

When I was doing the above mentioned exercise I found that

  • most of the countryside in the UK south-east has already been divided into 400m squares
  • finding out who the owner is of a specific piece can involve a lot of work because anything last sold before c. 1970 is not in the Land Registry
  • you need to find a location without houses too close (but no houses within say 5nm is too much to ask for)
  • the instant the owner finds out the real purpose (anything but farming) the price goes up 10x to 100x
  • most farmers won’t sell because all the time there is even a 0.001% chance of getting Planning to build houses… so a lease is the main option
  • trees and hedges are usually an issue, but there is no legal (I mean quick ) way to remove them

I’m surprised nobody has tried to build residential airports around those ex-DDR airports, which are BTW the easiest way to live in a scenic or populated area of the US and fly from your house.

We had this “air park” debate before several times and my view is that all but the totally fanatical flyers without a life don’t actually want to live in a small house next to a noisy runway. And that is where the various air park projects failed, with the Murcia one being the biggest (700 200k-400k houses originally, surrounded by desert in all directions). At a few hundred k or more, most people (and usually it is a man and a woman buying jointly, with one of them being a lot less keen on flying than the other one) want a nice house in a nice area, first and foremost. So while you could build an airpark in the middle of nowhere, nobody would buy the houses.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top