I didn't have to, but after wrangling an invite/permission to drop into Lori and Johns strip when next in the area, I did so, ass backwards. That is to say, downhill. Not much of a slope, but the trees on final coming in the "wrong" way and the slope made it interesting.

I flew into Hong Kong once, commercial, that was a pretty cool approach, you get a real close up look at the city!

courierguy wrote: I flew into Hong Kong once, commercial, that was a pretty cool approach, you get a real close up look at the city!

Kai Tak? That was the fun one, but it's now shut down and overgrown. My hotel in Kowloon was right on the edge overlooking the field. I'm sure one of the long haul pros can comment about it better than I can.

Courier Guy

Gregory's Castle
Skis or wheels?
At least you had a go around option that way, but still, I would not try it in that direction.
Did you do it that way to avoid the feeling of flying into a funnel?
It slops a bit down hill just past the shed with a "standard" approach.
Curious

Chris

Zzz wrote:

courierguy wrote: I flew into Hong Kong once, commercial, that was a pretty cool approach, you get a real close up look at the city!

Kai Tak? That was the fun one, but it's now shut down and overgrown. My hotel in Kowloon was right on the edge overlooking the field. I'm sure one of the long haul pros can comment about it better than I can.

I only did it in the simulator once, there are plenty of old yootoob video's though. I didn't know you had a hotel in Kowloon.

My favorite non-standard approach is Hidden Splendor in Utah, landing to the North. You can either fly through the canyon for a long approach, or drop into it closer, but either way it's a lot of fun.

Amcbean,
I was at Hidden Splendor last summer as a flight of two. We approached from the east to the west, overflew the strip, then circled over the cliff on the west and dropped into the canyon from the south as you did. When we were over the west cliff area both of our radios mysteriously quit and didn't work again until we were both on the ground. Anyone else ever had this happen in that area?

wannabe wrote:Courier Guy

Gregory's Castle
Skis or wheels?
At least you had a go around option that way, but still, I would not try it in that direction.
Did you do it that way to avoid the feeling of flying into a funnel?
It slops a bit down hill just past the shed with a "standard" approach.
Curious

Chris

On wheels, I wouldn't try that approach on the skis. Gregory, got it... thanks for that correction, what I do remember is his very cool gun collection, he makes real good coffee also. A super sanitary hangar also, in the middle of nowhere no less, very impressive.

With the bird I fly (Rans S-7) landing that ass backwards was a non event, I did it that way just because I could, and was easily stopped about the halfway point, I hadn't thought about the fact a go round would have been possible until you mentioned it, indeed. Just screwing around, the regular approach looked OK also, I just like to make it challenging sometimes. A real nice strip either way, familiar country, kinda in my backyard, a couple hrs away or so.

bumper wrote:When I was taught to fly, it was all about set proceedures, "turn to base right here when the numbers are 45 degrees on the rear quarter - half flaps on base . . . stabilized approach" . . . all bunk! All of that goes out the window and is of almost no use for off field.

This is one of the hardest things to get into student's heads. There is a reason for structure in the beginning, but when it comes to understanding and doing simulated engine failures, they have a hard time comprehending that it is ok to not fly a standard pattern and that you need to do whatever it takes to make the spot you are aiming for.

My personal favorites include Wilson Bar, Mackey Bar, and flying a figure 8 over Cabin Creek.

Most of you guys have more back country experience than I do, but non-standard approaches certainly aren't difficult if you know the airplane you're flying. When I took an intro seaplane ride near Sidney BC a couple years ago, it was in a 172 on straight floats. With the amount of 172 time I have in all models except the latest glass ones, there was little transition time--like maybe 30 seconds. We never flew more than 500' above the water, and all of the approaches were just "that's where we want to land--don't hit any boats". The only one that was particularly unusual was coming in under power lines to land at Montague Harbor, because I'd never flown under power lines before. Then we took off under a second set.

But the point is well made that the way we teach students often makes it difficult for pilots to get out of the "standard pattern" mode. When I was instructing 30-35 odd years ago, that was something I tried to address with the mock engine out exercises--land where you need to, using what's available to you, and forget about the "pattern rules".

Cary

porterjet wrote: I didn't know you had a hotel in Kowloon.

I wish! Life would be good, funneling my busy hotel profits into airplane credits from across the sea...

Stayed in Hong Kong last year, the hotel at which I had rented a room was on the edge of the old airfield.

The reason I started this thread is because I had been considering doing a periodic article (for the new website of course) on airstrips which have more interesting approaches than the usual square pattern.

As many have echoed, the thing that makes us different in the pilot world is that we generally think outside the box, because the best places to go generally aren't in the box, and we embrace this flexible approach to getting into and out of airstrips.

I think there's much to be learned by taking an example airstrip, say Wilson Bar for example, and like Lori would do in one of her classes, show it on the sectional, highlight the terrain, show some photos, and explain how a standard approach just won't work here, so this is how we do it.

I'm not a CFI, I'm not looking to instruct, but I think outlining good real-world examples as an entertaining article would be very useful to n00bs across the Internet. No substitute for instruction. Side effects may include inflated sense of skill, bloating, rapid beathing, hair loss, shrunken testicles, itchy scalp, and bent metal.

I think this is a great idea Zane. Done right, such articles could become a great reference source and filter out some of the bad info that is on the net on some approaches to some strips.