According to the pilot, after an uneventful flight, he verified the current weather conditions about 10 miles from the airport in Nampa, Idaho, and then entered the airport traffic pattern. That’s when he decided to conduct a “grass landing” in the Bearhawk.
The airplane touched down normally, but during the landing roll he observed an obstacle in the middle of the “runway.”
The pilot was unable to react before the right main landing gear hit a knoll and the airplane ground looped. The right main landing gear collapsed, and the right wing was substantially damaged.
The airplane landed on an area of grass between the runway and taxiway when it hit the grass knoll.
According to the airport manager, pilots are advised to land and takeoff on published runways only as prescribed under the airport policy page of the airport’s website. This information is not available in the airport’s chart supplement.
The pilot indicated that he checked the chart supplement for pertinent airport information, which did not include any restrictions about landing on the grass area between the taxiway and runway.
The pilot reported that there were no mechanical anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s selection of unsuitable terrain for landing, which resulted in impact with a knoll and a subsequent ground-loop.
This December 2019 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Landing on the grass at a paved airport. Always an interesting topic. While not illegal, it’s occasionally specifically addressed in the Chart Supplement, either permitted or not. Most times, like the one here in this article, the airport doesn’t want or simply can’t afford to pay for maintaining a sod runways. Then there is the liability issue. Allowing landings “at your own risk” on the grass, works, sort of. We all know what happens when someone crashes, and everyone ends up in court. Fear of litigation prevents a lot of things from happening, despite the realities of the situation. Fact is, Safe operation of the aircraft is the pilot in commands responsibility, period. Sadly a jury of our “peers” doesn’t seen to agree on that point of law.
Some folks might question why someone would want to land on the grass, with a perfectly good paved runway available. Well, in a conventionally geared aircraft, landing on the grass, especially with a stiff crosswind, can be a sight less dramatic than landing on the pavement. Grass allows the wheels to slip sideways a bit, which can help prevent a ground loop. Landing on the grass can also allow a more “into the wind” landing by traveling on an angle along the grass landing area, instead of along the runway centerline.
Another good reason to occasionally use the grass, at a paved strip – training. My home airport has a single 6000ft x 150ft runway in excellent condition. Training students in “Soft Field” procedures on that is ineffective. Adjacent to one side of the runway is a 3700ft x 200ft flat grassy area, mowed nicely by the city and as good as most grass strips I’ve used. This is a win for the student, as we don’t have to make a cross country flight to train on sod, it’s right there. Everything else, pattern, approach, frequencies, etc, are identical so learning can be focused directly on the task of operating on sod.
Why train on grass at all? Because in the real world, paved strips are often just beyond gliding range.
Most of VMC to IFR invovle a pilot trying to get to the nearest airport in the soup. Usually they’ve flown over a few pretty good landing options while trying to get there. Landing out because of unexpected foul weather is a valid option, but not if you’ve never trained for it. Pulling the engine on down-wind, and having them land on grass can really improve confidence for landing out because of an issue.
The Down Side – there always is one – often times, there are a great many things in the grass on airports, Lights, signs, antenna mounts, a short list of the ones that can be seen. Unseen, dangers such as old fence post stubs, other debris, divots, or who knows what left over from previous human activities could be hidden in the grass, along with unseen uneven terrain. Landing on grass for a tricycle geared aircraft different technique that’s probably not practiced, so risks are a bit higher due to pilot proficiency (which would be remedied by the use of grass occasionally). So pilots should drag the field before operating on that grass. By foot is best, if its your home strip, walk the intended area. If you must land on grass you’ve never walked on, make two or three low approaches and really convince yourself it’s safe. Once you land, walk the planned take off route.
WB
I agree strongly with you that ops on a grass RUNWAY are really important training (and proficiency) practices. FWIW, when it’s available -and not too muddy … don’t like repetitive cleaning of my aircraft’s tail) I ALWAYS use “the sod”. FWIW, I wish every towered airport and a lot more non-towered airports had the option of sod. Each and every time I depart or arrive on my home airport’s sod the tower says “Cleared to land {or takeoff} runway XX, USE OF THE SOD AT YOUR OWN RISK”. I can even hear them bold the caution note in the clearance. 🙂 Another big benefit of sod ops, besides practice with short/soft procedures is accuracy landings. Lose and engine? No fun, but the outcome is more likely to be good if we’ve operated off of short, or sod strips and know how to touch down on the spot, with or without power. At least landing on a designated runway (aka as “sod runway XX”) means likelihood of FOD or invisible humps like the one this unfortunate pilot encountered is low to very low.
Advising that operations on other than approved (runway) surfaces are not authorized seems totally unnecessary. What other foolish or careless actions should be specifically prohibited in the Chart Supplement? For example, should airports prohibit pilots from having unsecured trash or other loose items in an open cockpit or when cabin windows are open so as to prevent littering on airport Movement and Non-Movement areas?? For this pilot, didn’t he fail to comply with 14 CFR 91.103 when he decided to operate off runway on this airport?
Ҥ91.103 Preflight action.
Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. This information must include—
…(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff and landing distance information:
(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein; and
(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature.”
It’s a “NO DUH!” that obstacles on non-runway surfaces are likely to exist, AND that non-runway surfaces are not authorized for landing and taking off. Let’s not attempt to list all the stupid tricks and errors of omission or commission that pilots (and others) might do on an airport.
I agree with you 100%. But this was included in the airports Rules and Regulations: “No Aircraft may take off or land except on a runway”. I assume it was there for a good reason – some prior local activity or practice.
“According to the airport manager, pilots are advised to land and takeoff on published runways only as prescribed under the airport policy page of the airport’s website. This information is not available in the airport’s chart supplement.” It’s in the Chart Supplement now. “NAMPA MUNI(MAN)(KMAN) AIRPORT REMARKS: Attended 1500–0000Z‡. 91 octane fuel available. Calm wind Rwy 11. Grass tkof and ldg not auth.” It is critical to read this section for all flights.