What is short? What is soft? These questions, basic at surface level, may not seem as existential as those that question our purpose and lives. But in aviation terms, they are no less important.
In the course of training for the private certificate, you will learn and be able to demonstrate a short-field takeoff and landing, and a soft-field takeoff and landing. Most likely you are training at an airport with a paved runway longer than 3,000 feet, and probably approaching 5,000 feet. The demonstrations are therefore just that. They are comparable to parallel parking between two cones 50 feet apart in a closed parking lot, or giving a presentation to yourself in a mirror. Reality simply isn’t part of the equation.
The skills involved in the demonstration do have application potential. Used properly, they work when needed, and at some airports they are most certainly needed. But if showing an examiner how to do a short-field landing on a 5,000 foot piece of pavement is the final exam for an associate’s degree, flying for real is a survey course at the master’s level. Using the basic skills is only part of what’s involved in putting an airplane down on a challenging runway. First you must decide to actually apply the skill, and then you have to do it for real under actual conditions that are almost certainly unlike what you experienced in training.
Assuming you are comfortable with the short- and soft-field takeoff and landing techniques, it’s the application of those techniques that likely has you thinking. Unfortunately, there is no solid line at which you will always use one of these takeoffs and landings, and where you’ll simply take off and land normally. In all cases, judgment is necessary. But there are certain triggers that should get you thinking about putting a short- or soft-field technique into practice.
Density altitude. A 4,000-foot runway in Ohio is plenty for a fully loaded Cessna 172, even on a hot day. But the same can’t be said in parts of Colorado or New Mexico. If the density altitude is high, you should be studying all the variables. Review the performance charts carefully and make sure you have comfortable margins. If the book says the takeoff will require 3,900 feet and you have 4,000, change something. Have your passengers drive to an airport with a longer runway or lower density altitude. You can pick them up and leave from there. Or take on less fuel or fewer bags. Perhaps you want to scrub the flight and go early the next morning when temperatures are lower. And if the book says you will have 500 feet of runway left when you take off, it’s time to institute a combination of a short-field and soft-field techniques. Hold the brakes to build up power and get the proper mixture setting, but take off as early as possible and build flying speed in ground effect. This should give you considerably more runway to work with.
Weight. If you are flying at maximum gross weight or close to it, make sure to check the performance charts, and consider performing a short-field takeoff. Some pilots employ this technique even when they know they have thousands of extra feet of runway available to them, which is smart.
Personal minimums. Many pilots set personal limits on the length of runway they will attempt. If the runway you are using is close to that limit, a short-field takeoff and landing may be in order. The same goes for airplane minimums. Weight and density altitude lengthen the takeoff run, but a short runway has the same net effect, which is to say you will be close to the pavement’s limits. If you are flying out of a runway that you know is close to the limit of the airplane, use the short-field takeoff and landing technique.
Runway conditions. The soft-field situation can be much less obvious than the short field. There are many unpaved runways around the world. Do you perform a soft-field takeoff and landing at each? The answer depends on the situation. Sometimes even operating off a paved runway may call for the use of soft-field techniques. If you consider the elements of a soft-field takeoff and landing, the answer of when to use them becomes easier. The point is to stay off the brakes, and generally reduce the friction between the tires and the runway by taking off as soon as possible and landing as gently as possible. With this in mind, a paved runway with standing water calls for soft-field techniques, as do soggy grass, gravel, or dirt runways. You’ll also have better success at one of the few ice runways in the United States if you use certain elements of the soft-field technique. Hard grass runways rarely require a soft-field takeoff or landing, unless the grass is high. Then a soft-field takeoff and landing are appropriate.
Obstructions—rarely discussed in the training context—are of massive concern in the real world. Obstructions turn soft-field takeoffs and landings into short-and-soft fields. And they turn normal, easy short-field approaches into massively difficult affairs that require specialized training. A glimpse at the practical test standards reveals that the FAA acknowledges this point, and expects pilots to be trained with it in mind. The name “short-field landing” conjures up images of landing on the numbers and making the first turnoff, but the reality has a vital distinction. Anyone can fly a flat approach with power, chop it off, and slam it down at the end of the runway. But flying a steep approach with full flaps and hitting a spot, which the PTS requires, is a different and much more important skill. Rare is the 1,500 foot runway in the middle of nowhere with a hard surface and long overruns with no obstructions on either end. Most short runways are short for a reason. There are houses, trees, power lines, or terrain that keep them that way.
A real application of the short-field and soft-field takeoff and landing techniques often will involve some sort of combination of the two. The runway will be short, and also soft grass. Or it will have large obstructions and a gravel surface. The best way to approach such a situation is with knowledge ahead of time. Check the Airport/Facilities Directory for information on obstructions. Numerous websites, including AOPA Airports, have comment sections where pilots give notes on the airport. Look here for things to watch out for. If the runway isn’t paved, call ahead and ask about conditions. Owners of grass runways expect this phone call. In the case of paved runways with ice or water, check notices to airmen, which should give some details as to the expected challenges. Google Maps is also a great way to actually see the terrain and some obstructions ahead of time.
The next step is to take what you know about the runway, its condition, and the approach and departure paths, and compare it with your airplane’s performance charts. It could be that your airplane simply isn’t capable of landing at a particular airport. If you think it is, start figuring out how you might combine techniques.
For example, let’s say the runway is 3,000 feet of grass, but there are large obstructions on the approach path. In this case you might decide to fly a short-field approach but execute a soft-field landing. That means you would come in steep with full flaps, slightly below the normal approach speed, and aiming for a specific spot. But when you flare, instead of hitting the spot you add a small amount of power and make an effort to keep the nose up.
These types of combinations are endless. Use the elements of the techniques you learn in training, and you can apply them to any landing surface. Then the answer to “What is short?” and “What is soft?” won’t matter.
Ian J. Twombly is the editor of Flight Training magazine.
The world’s most challenging approaches
Gustaf III Airport, St. Barthélemy (SBH)
If the 2,133 feet of pavement isn’t enough to make you sweat, consider the approach to Runway 10. It’s a steep hillside that parallels the approach path. The hill’s highest point has a road (why not?) with frequent traffic, just in case the rest of the experience isn’t difficult enough.
Courchevel Airport, France (CVF)
The most difficult airports allow for only one way in and one way out. Such is the case at the legendary Courchevel Airport in the French Alps. At only 1,771 feet long, it would be challenging in New Jersey, much less at 6,588 feet up in the mountains. Oh, and did we mention the 18.5-percent gradient?
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Washington, D.C. (DCA)
The runways at Reagan are long enough (6,869 feet, 5,204 feet, and 4,911 feet), but the unusual approaches and security procedures make it quite extreme. Fly the river visual to Runway 19 and you’ll be making multiple turns within the last few miles, including a right turn to final in the last mile. Stray too far left of course and be prepared to answer with your certificate. There are two prohibited areas just off the river on the District side. None of this matters unless you follow the extensive security procedures, which include having a member of law enforcement on board.
Fane, Papua New Guinea (FNE)
It’s short. It’s high. And it’s incredibly rough. When people talk about an airport being on the top of a mountain, search “Fane strip” on YouTube and watch their jaws drop. The “airport” sits on the spine of a mountain at 4,300 feet. It’s only 1,480 feet of rough grass. On a positive note, there are few approach obstructions, as long as you don’t count the mountainous terrain you must overfly to get there as an obstruction. Come to think of it, almost any airport hacked out of the bush in Papua New Guinea is an extreme airport.
Related Articles
