Most pilots are afraid of this runway in Costa Rica, from the videos doesnt seems too bad.
Will you land from the sea (no go around) or from the mountains?.

If from the mountains as soon as over the trees reduce all power and do a steep dive or shallow?Dont tell me to go get an isntructor because no one wants to go there.
runway lenght 1,200 ft.

Plane Cessna 182 Sportsman STOl , VGs
Pilot 400hrs
My usual distance in short field landings are 600ft to stop.

The guy on the video goes there every day transporting tourists in a 206 without mods, he comes over the trees because its the direction he is flying from and wants to save fuel.He has been doing it for 25 years (one time he broke a plane while landing).
The runway sometimes is a bit overgrown, muddy and slippery.
There have been a couple of Alaska bush pilots coming here and both landed from the sea.

Does the wind usually blow in from the sea?

I like to land into the wind or up hill, whichever has the stronger influence. No wind I would land that strip towards the mountain and take off towards the ocean.

Good day

Wind starts coming from the sea at about 8:00 am, maybe 3 to 5 kts.
Coming from the mountains is slightly downhill.

So if landing from the mtns better to wait for the headind then? Or might be a bit turbulent with the tall trees?

I land in things like that all day long. Better to land going up hill; The strip is wide and clean. The approach is good so set up for landing is not to bad. Take off I would go toward the sea. You would have a slight up hill roll but a easy take off with a nice climb out. Not like landing on a gravel bar with a slight turn on a winding river. Nice video..

Ken in Alaska

I watched a couple of the videos, then looked at the runway on Google Earth. It's at 8.478, -83.591.

Here's my thoughts.

1) The strip appears to be longer than 1200 ft. in the videos. Close inspection of just the portion used as a runway on google earth would seem to indicate that it's 1600 ft long.
2) There are no mountains. Around here that's a hill. It's 500 - 550 ft. higher than the runway, a mile before the threshold.

So, terrain is not an issue. Runway length is not an issue. If there's any wind, land into it.

Talking to the guy who operates this runway all the time, he says usable runway is 1200 ft, the rest is overgrown and muddy, there are more than 10 planes that have crashed here.

From the videos doesnt look too difficult coming either way, but a final low and slow over those trees is not too nice, a C 182 was lost when on approach to this runway, both guys killed no one knows if it was a stall or engine failure.

Get the lawn mower out Are they supplying the people in the house? Or just flying in for fun?

It is the ranger station of the national park, sometimes they deliver supplies or transport tourists

What tires are you running. How about the 206 guy?

Which end has the unusable 400'? Is there anything to mark the start of the usable portion? Ignoring wind and slope for a second, I'd approach over the soft overrun as low and slow as possible, and plant it on the displaced threshold.

BTW there's a similar strip near Anchorage with a great name. It's called "Bold".

If you have to abort and go around, I would much rather be looking at the open end and the ocean than trying to out climb the rising terrain. Per the vids it looks like he has this approach down pat! Then again, after 25 yrs he better

I have the standard tires, the 206 also has standard

Am I the only guy cringing watching the first video as he dragged it in over the last 3 miles of inhospitable jungle?

Two local strips come to my mind as being similar, and I landed both of them differently based on wind conditions. The first was Bold (A13) previously mentioned, appropriately named. The second is Whittier (PAWR). When I landed at Bold, I landed down hill, toward the lake into a strong headwind. When I landed at Whittier, I landed over the water with only a light breeze for a tailwind. Either of these strips could be landed the other way if wind conditions were different. Whittier has a steep hill on one end that would make landing from that direction difficult without a good breeze, full flaps, and a hard slip. On either of these strips, with my apathetic 150, a go-around is probably not an option after short final when landing toward the land (Bold has gradually rising terrain but tall trees at the end of the 1000' runway). I would rather crash on roll out than full power and trying to out climb the terrain. Take off was into the wind, over the water on both strips. I would have passed on both of these if the wind had been strongly off shore.

In summary, make sure you brush up on your spot landings, pay attention to the wind, and plan on making your first approach your only approach when landing inland. It never hurts to do a low fly-by first. From the videos, it doesn't look like runway slope is much of an issue, but it is worth being aware of how it will affect your stopping distance and float.

Arcticmayhem wrote:Am I the only guy cringing watching the first video as he dragged it in over the last 3 miles of inhospitable jungle?

AMEN!!

Man, I was squirming in my seat as he flew and flew and flew low over that jungle. Seems to me that even if you're going to land going that direction, I can't imagine why you have to be that low that far out.

It sounds like, if I'm reading this correctly that landing from the water toward the land you'd be landing on a slight uphill, correct? So, landing over the trees and toward the ocean, you've got a downhill landing. How much downhill?

So, the wind would likely be the deciding factor. I notice that the pilot in the first video didn't overfly the runway to verify obstructions/people/animals/vehicles on the runway....not so good. That also means he didn't check the actual wind conditions on the runway either.

Maybe he's flown in there so long and so many times that he's very familiar with the conditions, and is comfortable doing things this way, but...

I I were going in there, and it looks like a reasonable 182 deal, I'd be overflying first, try to figure out what the wind is doing, then land appropriate to wind and slope.

And, look for a mule standing in the middle of the runway.

MTV

"Am I the only guy cringing watching the first video as he dragged it in over the last 3 miles of inhospitable jungle"?

We're all vulnerable From the time you push the throttle to the firewall until wheel stop. It's a matter of trust in your machine, having a good machine you can trust and trusting your machine, timing is everything Skill & knowledge are in there too.

What amazes me are the number of hours and flights in the backcountry stretching the limits like we do and the low number of accidents and incidents on record.

mtv wrote:

Arcticmayhem wrote:Am I the only guy cringing watching the first video as he dragged it in over the last 3 miles of inhospitable jungle?

AMEN!!

Man, I was squirming in my seat as he flew and flew and flew low over that jungle. Seems to me that even if you're going to land going that direction, I can't imagine why you have to be that low that far out.

I was thinking / doing the same thing...unless he was trying to stay under some form of airspace I could see no reason for the treetop skating.

Glidergeek wrote:We're all vulnerable From the time you push the throttle to the firewall until wheel stop. It's a matter of trust in your machine, having a good machine you can trust and trusting your machine, timing is everything Skill & knowledge are in there too.

Trust, but verify...you will live longer that way. Even the most dependable machines can / will fail at some point whether it be due to themselves or an outside influence (i.e.- birds flushed out of the treetops and through the prop)...altitude is your friend and it gives you options. Dragging it in longer than needed for the approach falls into the category of: runway behind you, altitude above you, and airspeed you don't have...it's useless.

This guy operates this runway everyday more than once per day, he tries to save fuel, and his base airport is about 20 miles NE of this runway, so he doesnt climb much and do a direct flight to this runway.
At $7.00 per gallon and he is 1 hr from the next airport with fuel.He is trying to be as economical as possible to survive in his bussines, although he has no competitor, he is the only one who goes there commercially.

It is all virgin jungle all around it , it wouldnt make a difference if he is 1,000ft higher , no where to go in an emergency, maybe more time to sort out a problem, that's all.

Yo go down in that jungle and will be years before you are found, a C182 went down and was found 20 years later by some hikers exploring the National Park.

motoadve wrote:
Yo go down in that jungle and will be years before you are found, a C182 went down and was found 20 years later by some hikers exploring the National Park.

3 letters that can save your life...PLB.

Moto-
In the third video are you the guy flying, sitting in the passenger seat or back seat? Purley curious??

It would make a difference if he was higher on final & lost the engine. You could MAKE the runway vs clipping that ridge. Id like a chance to pick my crash site rather than having it chosen for me. I understand what your saying though, I can see most places it won't matter what your Alt is, your going down in rough terrain. But in that case saving fuel by not gaining a little cushion & dragging in seems a bit reckless.

Go with the wind. Landing inland you have the slope in your favor. You've said before u practice spot landings, get it down at the end or decide early to abort. Seaward you have the wind & an easy go-around. You have the advantage of sea level performance & lower DA issues.

Best of luck sir!