Update: I'm still trying to decide between a Cessna 206 and a Cirrus SR22

That’s remarkable, and speaks of the financial necessity (no user fees) of that type of operation, along with the pilot-community recognition of the need for appropriate training from the qualified CFIs experienced in those conditions, together with the quality of those European grass strips and the cooler weather, especially when at max gross.

We don’t have those favorable circumstances typically in the US, and not in this case in particular. It would be possible to duplicate the quality of the European training, and would be possible to duplicate the routine landings at European strips with frequent practice at this unusual (for the US) field to maintain proficiency. But in the US most pilots and CFIs don’t have much experience with such challenging conditions. It would take a dedicated soul to maintain the skill to operate out of a field like that in a gross-out SR22 in the US, to avoid the obvious risks involved in a short & soft field takeoff or landing where small mistakes are amplified quickly. I don’t think this is a challenge that a GA pilot in the US should take on lightly, when there are safer alternatives. If it’s a challenge accepted, dedicate yourself to becoming an unusually proficient and skillful pilot, trigger-happy to execute a takeoff abort or go-around with stringent decision points in mind before commencing the manevuer. And don’t use it as a destination unless you’ve got the fuel to make a few tries before going elsewhere.

I wonder if this strip, like Mountain Air, has had a few over-confident/daredevil pilots of high performance airplanes try to land or takeoff from there who didn’t succeed.

I agree 100%. While the lack of obstructions on the overwater approach is helpful, such an airport - especially in Florida where the temps are often high - simply leaves too little margin for error.

There are many aircraft for which this type of airport is quite suitable. The Cirrus is not, in my opinion anyway, one of them.

I guess I couldn’t disagree more. Training in Europe is notoriously bad. All I’ve learned about short and soft field ops I learned in the US. Admittedly most from a CFI who was ridiculed a lot for weeds hanging from the gear of his 150.

I would guess there are many more pilots and instructors in the US than in Europe that know a lot about “light bush flying”. There are also a lot that don’t. Maybe they are more prevalent in the Cirrus community, it being a “quasi airliner” to many.

Personally, I think a 28 percent margin is nowhere Near cutting it close under the circumstances. But that’s for each pilot to decide for themselves. And yes, it not only requires training, but also some simple “getting used to”.

When we do our trips bringing German pilots to the US, the US instructors are often surprised to see the Germans plant the aircraft very early on the runway rather than letting it drift for hundreds of feet in search of a super smooth touchdow. Well, there’s one reason…

One thing that I feel is really important: you say it requires a super-dedicated, super skilled pilot to make this runway work. To that, I truly disagree. A pilot who can’t make the POH numbers work in the vast majority of his takeoffs and landings needs immediate training. That should be a standard, average skill. its just that many pilots nevEr pay attention to this. It’s fun, actually. Use Pro Flite to calculate the distances, then measure the actual ones, by GPS or the airport chart or some other means.

Thread creep:

Are German descent angles steeper than US?

I heard this was so, based on noise restrictions, from a German couple who came here to work on their short field and soft field landings.

wmagathan:
That’s remarkable, and speaks of the financial necessity (no user fees) of that type of operation,

It’s remarkable only to someone used to the plethora of paved airports that exists in the US. The use of short unpaved strips in Europe, Australia and other places outside North America isn’t for financial necessity, it’s an operational necessity.

via COPAme
Asus Nexus 7

Hmm. I wouldn’t think so. Traffic patterns are vastly bigger, IMHO unsafely so, to avoid noise and from bad habit. I have attached a chart. Follow the blue line…

FWIW, that runway is 2600 feet, just like the oh so impressive Everglades City.

frankly, I didn’t quite get that part. Landing at one of those strips (airfields, to us) is ten to twenty bucks per, thank you very much.

I’m sure you’ve learned more about short grass strips from your actual experience in Europe than from that CFI. And while flight training in Europe may be awful, it must be especially good at short grass takeoff and landing instruction at least - I assume the accident rate is not awful in and out of those strips.

As I understand it, in Europe pilots are attracted to short grass strips to avoid user fees. In the US, pilots have no such incentive, and don’t. Leaving out the bush pilots in Alaska who would not be much help to a guy learning to land on a short grass strip in Florida, I’d wager that the percentage of SR22 pilots routinely landing SR22s on short grass strips in Europe is significantly higher than in the US.

In Florida’s six rainy summer months, the high temps typically exceed 30C and rain is often a daily occurrence. At 32C, using a G2 POH and some interpolation, the hard surface takeoff roll of an SR22 at max gross is about 1170 feet. Plus 30% for wet grass is 1,520 feet to break ground. To clear a 50 foot obstacle, 2,140 feet. So at the departure end of the runway (the beach at either end) you’d be at about 25 feet, or less than 20 feet over the heads of the people on the beach. I don’t call that a 28% margin. And these are Cirrus test pilot numbers, with a new engine and prop adjusted exactly right to produce full power, with factory new and clean wings, and nothing but an estimate of 30% to account for the length of the grass and runways bumps.

As for landings, the ground roll at 32C is 1,210 feet for this Cirrus test pilot and new airframe. Plus 60% for wet grass is 1,936 feet, putting the pilot in the water at past the departure end of the runway with brakes smoking and/or tires skidding more than likely. And that’s assuming a touchdown in the first foot of the runway, just past the beach sand. A skilled pilot might not want to decapitate a person on the beach, and may not want to touch down a bit short in the sand and rip his gear off, so figure such a pilot may be able to touchdown 100 feet past the approach end (basically, commercial pilot PTS standards, something a typical GA pilot cannot do every time, or even half the time), leaving him further in the water. Even with dry grass, the landing distance is 1,450 feet. Landing 400 past the end of the runway (not too bad for a typical airport) puts you into the water at the other end, standing on the brakes. Again, I don’t see the 28% margin. And while neither end or the runway is a cliff, a beach full of vacationers and salt water just beyond is not much better than a cliff at either end.

This comment is what I would expect, and is contrary to the sense of your earlier point that the US has many more experienced “light bush pilots” than Europe, and that European flight instruction - at least for short grass strip operations - is “notoriously bad.” You Europeans might be able to handle this Florida strip in a max gross SR22 if you were careful about the weather conditions and ready to cancel a flight or on return go somewhere else. I’m not so sanguine about the typical US pilot’s chances.

To that, I can only say that you are speaking for European pilots, who obviously with the necessity of their practice under such conditions find max performance takeoffs and landings so easy. I’m truly impressed, and would love to fly with a competent European pilot into such strips - an experience I’m sure I’d hardly believe. I think that is way beyond the skill level of the typical US pilot, and can be expected only of CFIs who teach the maneuver a lot, and of SR22 owners who apply themselves to the challenge. For the rest of us, it’s not necessary, and why put that kind of wear and tear on the airplane to practice something you never do.

Finally, we’re not giving advice to Bob Hoover or even Thomas Borchert here. This is all intended for a guy who hasn’t bought his Cirrus yet, and has no experience at this airport, nor anything like it.

Well, OK, those reasons too. I haven’t had the pleasure of flying a GA plane in any of those locales, although I’d love to some day, and get a feel for how different GA flying is in other countries.

I meant that I’d learned from other threads that Europeans GA pilots prefer short grass strips because landing on a US-typical 4000 foot paved runway is too expensive thanks to user fees. If that’s not the principle reason, though, I’d be interested to know why Europeans do it anyway.

No, it’s not. The quoted 1800ft actually provides for a displaced threshold at each end. The length beach to beach is over 2100 ft (see below.) Nobody’s suggesting that landing there is a piece of cake, but for a competent pilot exercising good judgement it’s quite doable. Just like flying an approach to minimums - you do need to be appropriately trained, experienced and current, but given those prerequisites it can be conducted safely.

If I had a good reason to go into that airstrip I would do so - in appropriate weather, at an appropriate weight and ready to go around if required. Takeoff is the less critical operation in performance terms - even at max weight and with wet grass you should be at 50 ft over the beach, and there’s little the pilot can do to screw that up. Landing is more demanding of pilot technique but has the advantage of a go-around being an option - even after the wheels are on the ground!

Interesting that you’d measure it out - I’ll take your word for it. Every resource I checked had the available distance as 1800 feet. For the extra 150 feet you see on either end - or is it 300 feet on one end and none on the other? - do you know if that extra is mowed and maintained? Would you consider the runway for takeoff and landing purposes as actually 2100 feet, despite what the available references say?

That’s carefully limited, and applicable only to you. The OP wanted to know if it’s OK to operate in and our of there with his wife and two kids aboard, without any stated limitations. What’s your advice to him?

Because it’s all we have in terms of airfield infrastructure.

One other comment to what you said: I’m not giving any advice at all. I’m just reporting my experience. Which also included that the 1800-feet strip will not be usable under some circumstances. So we totally agree on that.

I disagree, though, on your approach to POH numbers. For me, after a lot of comparing reality with the book on a variety of makes and models, those numbers are utterly achievable for an average pilot in an average aircraft. No superhuman test pilot skills required. Skip the full power braking (and add some feet to the roll out) and you won’t do any harm to the aircraft, either. Try it some day, on your standard 5000-feet-plus pavement. As I said, it’s fun.

Wally,

Seriously, a reality check is in order. Anyone asking for advice here must be grown-up enough to take all said with a grain of salt and apply it to his/her background, skill level and so on. That simply goes without saying. Just because a bunch of electrons on the internet say you can or can’t do something doesn’t mean you can mindlessly run out and do it. So, yes, , the OP will have to apply some intelligence to what he reads here. Big deal. I’m totally confident he can do it.

Clyde and I appear to come from different flying backgrounds than you, hence we give different advice. You seem to want to taint this as categorically unsafe advice expect for “superpilots” - and of course only without women and children on board. Well, here’s the only truly safe advice you can give to the OP regarding flying: Don’t. At all. No matter which aircraft. That will 100-percent guarantee you will not harm yourself (nor wife or kids) while flying. Good enough? I didn’t think so. Clyde’s comparison to an approach to minimums is excellent.

I doubt that for the majority of European Pilots (and definitely the majority of those who can afford to own a Cirrus) the landing fees are the deciding factor when going to a small grass strip. We go there because in many cases it’s the only available infrastructure unless you want to drive for an additional hour.

While I’ve decided to use those 2000 ft grass strips with my SR22TN under the right circumstances (pictures here: https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/member/cirrus_general/cirrus_flying/f/4/t/148883.aspx) I would not base an aircraft there which I want to use to fly to work. There are too many situations (especially with a wet runway) where the safety margin gets too thin and at some point a combination of bad luck and get-there-itis will catch me. As a pure hobby and and only flying in fair weather I would see this differently. I agree with most of the other posters who say the SR22 is not the right aircraft for the OP unless he can pave the runway. A Kodiak would be perfect, but obviously with an entirely different budget.

On a more general note - yes, flying in Europe is different from the US because we lack your GA infrastructure. The biggest limitation is the lack of IAPs on practically all small airports.

My homebase Egelsbach is the main satellite airport to Frankfurt, 80.000 aircraft movements a year including anything from a Cessna 150 to a Citation X. It has no IAP. If I have to go there in bad weather I have to ask for an ILS into Frankfurt/Main (yes, the main Lufthansa Hub), cancel IFR over the threshold and follow the highway A5 to Egelsbach.

At many other airports it is more or less required to fly the ILS at 150-160 kts to 4 NM final unless you want to hold for an hour and I know at least one airport (Salzburg during the winter ski season) which does not accept any IFR arrivals unable to maintain 160 kts to 4 NM final.

Is flying in Europe unsafe - no, as long as you’re training regularly and know when to say “no” to ATC or cancel a flight when it can’t be done safely. Is your environment safer than ours - yes, without any doubt.

Fly safe,

Bernd

Thanks for a great post, Bernd, very informative!

Good to hear. Which gets back to a guy wanting to base an SR22 there: the fact he would be grounded (or unable to return) for much of the time would either frustrate him for lack of utility or tempt him to go when he shouldn’t. He’s better off with a 206 for those reasons, I believe.

You’ve obviously got more experience than I in having to max out the performance of GA aircraft. My position on the POH numbers comes mainly from reading what others have written on the topic over the years. You may be right.

I think you’re quite right about the reasons for differing advice. I have found the discussion with global GA aviators like you and Clyde quite interesting. The conditions you guys have to deal with indeed make you “superpilots” in my mind.

Hardly. But thanks, I guess. It’s all a question of what you are used to.

Roshard I note that you are a new pilot and this will be your first experience as an owner/operator. That, to me, is the most important component, and your desire to fly out of your backyard may be weighted too heavily. (no pun intended)

Consider that whenever you operate at the limits of the airplane’s ability you need to be 100% on your game. Most pilots never get to stay at 100%, and most new pilots won’t be there without considerable experience. Each variable is a potential risk factor, and it’s best to avoid stacking them until you’re truly able to unstack them. With enough fuel to go anywhere and some PAX weight you would be leaving little margin for learning experiences. So how long would it take you to drive to a “real” airport? Is it really worth the angst to use a minimal field?

I’d suggest building time and experience at the friendliest environment available. The fun factor is at least as important as the convenience factor.

I flew to Flagstaff today to do some house shopping. 7,000 foot runway; 7,000 foot altitude. Hot day. Just enough to send us into the performance tables for my little jet, and it’s a lot more workload frankly. While my balanced field calculations are more complex, the comparison is apt, as the pilot workload increases. At some point on the continuum the added stress weighs too much, though not today. For a new pilot intentionally adding stress may rob you of the joy you’re buying. Just a thought.

Finally, utility will require you to become instrument rated, and you’ll want an airport that supports those capabilities, too. If you use the instrument procedures on every arrival they’ll serve you well when they’re needed.