FAA allowing turf ops next to paved runways

The EAA (particularly Vintage) has been working on putting a grass runway in for the tailskid crowd near 18/36.

Frederick has landable grass parallel to both runways. The one north of 30 is the glider strip (but open to others), but the space to between 23/5 and the taxiway is also perfectly fine. Before there was a tower, I landed there.

The amusing time was going to the AOPA open house (and being well used to FDK), I turned off the runway when the temporary tower was about to send someone behind me around and I turned off, "Oh, yeah, that works."
 
I've been using the grass alongside the paved runway whenever possible, both at my home field and elsewhere. Some airports don't want planes off the pavement, but many others don't care.
 
Aside from practicing grass-field ops, why would you choose the grass over pavement?
 
I ask because my airport (KSEZ) seems to have space next to the runway for a grass field. If there is interest, I'd make a recommendation to clean it and allow it's use as an alternative landing spot. I'm on the board, so I have a little bit of pull.
 
When I learned to fly at New Bedford (EWB), they had a short grass strip that was "use at your own risk". Got to use it a few times in training. Valuable experience.
 
Aside from practicing grass-field ops, why would you choose the grass over pavement?

When big tires cost close to $2k each and wear quickly, you learn to avoid pavement.

Strong crosswinds can be easier to deal with on grass as well. Last week I landed on the grass between the runway and taxiway because the winds were strong enough that I ran out of rudder. Landing in the grass allowed me to be more aligned with the wind and let the plane skid a little as I slowed down.
 
It's the safest way to operate for anyone with a tailskid.
 
I did not know the FAA did not allow landing in the grass next to the pavement.

I don't think it's a matter of "not allowing", so much as airfield design criteria did not address it at all. For some people that is an open door, but for others it is an excuse to say no. I and many others have operated this way many times, but I have also been told no more than once. This provides a path of clear compliance with the FAR, which may have insurance ramifications. I also wonder what freedom ATC would have to allow such operations on a controlled field without clear guidance on how to operate. The FAA puts a lot of effort into preventing runway incursions, so I doubt they want Class C and D towers making up their own procedures and ground layouts without some kind of effort to standardize.
 
I don't think it's a matter of "not allowing", so much as airfield design criteria did not address it at all. For some people that is an open door, but for others it is an excuse to say no. I and many others have operated this way many times, but I have also been told no more than once. This provides a path of clear compliance with the FAR, which may have insurance ramifications. I also wonder what freedom ATC would have to allow such operations on a controlled field without clear guidance on how to operate. The FAA puts a lot of effort into preventing runway incursions, so I doubt they want Class C and D towers making up their own procedures and ground layouts without some kind of effort to standardize.
When I was based at a Class D port, I visited the tower and the controllers told me that they'd clear me to land on the grass at my own risk.
 
When I was based at a Class D port, I visited the tower and the controllers told me that they'd clear me to land on the grass at my own risk.

Some airports allow it, others don't. My local class D airport will not allow any airplane takeoffs or landings from anywhere but an open runway. At the same time, I can land a helicopter pretty much wherever I want. I'm curious to see if this new guidance will loosen things up for airplane operations here.
 
Back
Top