Nice, that’s what flying a small airplane is about.
Have I mentioned that I’d love to fly a Bonanza one day? Quite high on my list, that one, V-tail or not…
NCYankee, I agree – there’s MANY US pilots who routinely fly into bush strips, But I would say, although many, those gyus are considered experts. While in Germany really everybody flies into 1500 ft strips, okay maybe except the real beginners.
I really like flying to grass/bush strips. Haven’t done it much with the Cirrus yet, but with the Warriro I really landed in every small strip, grass, gravel, anything. The Cirrus I did take to two grass strips, was no problem at all. But those were pretty long around 2400 ft. I don’t care if the plane gets dirty, it’s a machine to get me to the places I want to go. But I bought a second pair of wheel pants, which i will get repainted now, so I have a second pair and change them once I have ruined the original ones ….
The STUNT for this landing in the movie AIR AMERICA was done by my friend Tom Danaher of Wichita Falls, Texas. They used a Porter they restored from a wreck for this scene because the Thai Army wouldn’t give them a Porter for this, as it was originally planned for the filming. I once published a story about how this was doen in a geman flying mag.
Even the UK can boast some interesting strips – I strongly recommend Nayland, although I wouldn’t venture there in a nose dragger.
I meant to make it clear that short and soft field takeoffs etc were done in the US PPL. They were not done in my UK/JAA PPL.
The UK only seems to require a ‘performance’ landing, which is supposed to be a reasonably accurate arrival at the aiming point, and braking. Vref typically 5 knots slower than for normal.
I brief soft field take offs – quite relevant in the UK, but you are correct, not part of the syllabus even though described in the POH.
My US Private check ride included several type of takeoffs, at least three of which were one after the other on the same 8,000 × 150 ft runway.
US Private check ride included several type of takeoffs, at least three of which were one after the other on the same 8,000 × 150 ft runway.
That was awfully short, I’d never be able to make 3 take offs and landings in 150 feet. Did you notice the runway was especially wide (8000 feet). 
It saved time I guess, and allowed the DPE to check three boxes quickly. 
A friend of mine likes to request an ‘early turn-out’ at this place with the 8000 ft runway, then start a curving take off roll completely across the run-up area, eventually reaching 45 degrees (mis) alignment with the runway centerline before lifting and making a 45 degree turn to crosswind. I don’t do that but when landing and in the flare, I find myself getting a bit lost: the sides of the runway are 75 ft away and so far out in my peripheral vision.
The narrower the runway, the easier it is to stay on the center line – proof that nature doesn’t always conspire again you.
The fact that this thread (which was about an obstacle clearance departure) has turned into a discussion of short fields and soft fields only shows too well that these things get totally mixed up in GA flying training. As long as these three things will not be properly separated, standards will not improve.
Anyway, since we were not talking about grass, I agree with Peter that grass is not like grass.
On one end of the scale there are “northern european” grass runways, where the grass is often very “thick and dense”, crerating lots of drag. Also, the ground can be very mossy (Gigha comes to mind) and thus soft. And then of course, most northern european grass runways tend to be soft and muddy after long rainfalls, and generally in winter, spring and even early summer. I remember one april departure from Glenforsa. Had it been asphalt, I would have used 300 metres of runway to liftoff. In reality, it was about 550 metres, so almost double the amount. However, since these fields are soft, they are more gentle with the mechanics and avionics of the aircraft.
On the other end of the scale, there are many “southern european” grass runways, where the grass is often much less dense, creating far less drag. The ground is often rock hard and barren, making takeoff and landing rolls very shaky. On the positive side, take-off rolls are often only something like 5 or 10% or so more than it would be on an asphalt runway. On the negative side, the mechanics (and especially high value avionics) get a real shakethrough each time one taxies, lands, or takes off from such a runway.
What Peter and I will never agree on is the value of grass runways in european GA flying.
First off, I have a certain understanding for Peter’s position. If I had been in the position to have wrecked my shiny new aircraft in an unmarked pothole at a grass airstrip, I would probably feel somewhat similar.
Alas, most of us haven’t had such bad luck and get a lot of enjoyment from grass airfields. And that’s not only the VFR bimbling people with their Cubs.
I am very much a “go places” pilot myself. And I have to say, my flying so far would have been so much less interesting without these.
Tons of destinations I would have never got to if I had refused to use a grass strip. Lots of nice people I have met at grass airfields. A lot of great places in Europe only have grass runways, especially so on the British Isles, Denmark, Poland, Italy, and (to a lesser degree) also in Germany. Of course, one could always land at the next bog standard IFR airport, take a rental go car and then go places. But it’s totally not the same.
Is using grass airfields good for your aircraft, particularly one with expensive avionics? Certainly not. Anyway, IMHO life is too short to be constantly worried about the perfect “as new” condition of one’s aircraft. It’s a weighing up of pros and cons.
Does flying at grass airfields bring about more “risk”? Certainly, since they are far less “predictable” (see above) than asphalt runways. Out of the five times I was close to making damage to my aircraft, two occasions involved grass operations. Always keep your margins.
