Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Your shortest ever runway?

Isn’t this the “balanced runway” proposal which, according to AOPA somewhere, will remove about 900 airports (which is a huge # in Europe!) from being usable by private jets?

It is, but the terminology is not quite correct. „Balanced field length“ is a technique by which the takeoff distance and the v-speeds are computed in a way, so that both a takeoff abort at V1 and an engine failure immediately after V1 can be handled within the awailable space. But takeoff distances have never been factored and will not be factored, so this is not the problem. The factors applied to the landing distances will remove many bizjets from anywhere with less than 1000-1200m runway on dry days and 1200-1400m wet. Unless EASA can agree on a smaller factor for private operations. Recently I talked to a guy who is a member of the committee that will take that decision and according to him, not everything is lost yet.

EDDS - Stuttgart

@ Airborne Again
- if somebody adds 100% safety margin for landing on wet grass that would be actual landing distance x 2
in Sweden if you have to take 141% as safety factor that would be actual landing distance x 1,41 and would be less than 2, not an additional 41%, isn’t it?

Last Edited by nobbi at 23 Oct 20:15
EDxx, Germany

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20130121SSL07.pdf

This is the CAA safety sense leaflet for GA Performance calculations.

Safety factors are cumulative, so as per the leaflet you would multiply the suggested take off safety factor of 1.33x, 1.2x for dry grass, 1.1x for 2% upslope, and so on and so forth – in the example the cumulative factors come to 2.03×.

In my example and using PT landing safety factor for propeller aircraft of 1.43x (the reciprocal of 70% is 1.43x, not 1.41x), the cumulative for wet short grass would be 2.86x – or 335 metres for a PA18! The CAA however suggests 1.6x for landing on short wet grass – but my experience suggests at least 100% or 2×.

The PT safety factors for performance calculations are to reduce the risk of accidents to PT standards of 1 in a million – I don’t recall what factor is used for grass runways for Class A, probably type specific and specified in the AFM.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

As said above, for non-commercial non-complex ops (Part NCO), there is no factoring requirement. And a good thing that is, because the assumed “modern” POH technique of crossing the threshold at 3 degrees and 50ft would get you an interesting conversation with your instructor when applied on a 500m runway, because you would touch down beyond he midpoint. In Aachen, I aim to taxi OFF there without excessive braking if I feel like practicing how short I can make it. And if I practice short field landings on longer runways, I aim to be off / stopped before the touch down zone!

For non-commercial complex [basically twin turboprop and above] you have to apply these safety factors. The killer one was the requirement to take accelerate-stop distance into account, assuming an abort just before lift-off which is normally limiting for a twin unless it is VEEEERY hot. You can land and take off a King Air 90 in amazingly little space, especially if you have reverse thrust available after landing, but stopping from flying speed with no reverse thrust nearly doubles the runway required. I believe the latest rules no longer have it, after years of wrangling and pointing out to the authority that there has never been a single accident that would have been prevented by this rule in Europe. EVER.

The grass safety factors recommended by the CAA are complete BS. They are calculated off the landing/take-off distance, not the landing roll, so can be excessive for a flat approach and are too little for real short-field technique.

Biggin Hill

I would say 435m with C172/PA28 at our airfields shortest runway (ESKC – Uppsala/Sweden).

03/21 630 × 40 m
08/26 500 × 40 m
14/32 435 × 40 m

Jonas

Last Edited by Jonas at 24 Oct 08:11
ESOW Västerås, Sweden

I’ve never seen anyone using 14/32 unless there is a really hefty crosswind on 03/21…

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Not only usable when it’s windy, have used it for instance during sunset when i have forgotten my sunglasses :) Also convenient to land at 32, less taxi on ground :)

ESOW Västerås, Sweden

…and give away free flight (block) time?

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 25 Oct 12:02
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Listed as 1200 feet long (365m) but in reality 860 feet usable (262m), Lower Loon (Idaho) in a Cessna 180. Field elevation 4000 feet. You have to fly down a valley and make a turn at the end to land, and do the opposite on departure. It’s just a flat-ish dirt runway which gets very rough at the river end. There are no go-around options, you have to nail the landing first time. (Lower Loon is a very appropriate name, you have to be a bit of a loon to go there). You also don’t want to go there with any significant wind due to the surrounding mountainous terrain.

Shortest over here was probably Derryogue in Northern Ireland, which is 470m (grass, very well maintained). No sweat in the Auster, using no short field technique at all the Auster doesn’t even use half of that.

Andreas IOM

alioth that is a fine Auster Autocrat in your avatar!

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top