Very nice work. The apparent rate of closure is much faster from the left wing view. Normal apparent brisk walk rate of closure is visible only through front windscreen or from the ground near the touchdown spot.

Your low ground effect takeoff is nicely down to a couple feet. How much greater is the acceleration compared with three to five feet, other things being equal?

Contact ,I do feel more acceleration, the lower I do the ground effect, it could also be optical illusion at being closer to the ground, but I think it does work.

Yes, it makes a difference. It is much easier to judge with a full load. When spraying, especially with piston aircraft, we keep increasing load until it starts to get flakey at six inches ground effect. No way it would fly out of low ground effect sooner.

Nice job! Pretty impressive to get that 182 into Bull Run. You've inspired me to try out a couple of new spots this Spring.

So... can we all just not label these strips pretty please? Now the whole flying internet is googling Bull Run or whatever and planning it into their summer adventures. Guess I know where not to be...

Oregon back country flying isn't to bad, eh.

skiermanmike wrote:So... can we all just not label these strips pretty please? Now the whole flying internet is googling Bull Run or whatever and planning it into their summer adventures. Guess I know where not to be...

$%#@y thing about a free country, huh?

I know this an old thread, but one that shouldn't be ignored. It has become the norm, for our land management agencies to close down airstrips (recognized or not) such as Bullrun for so call "resource protection" reasons. Each time OUR Land Managers designate OUR lands to a new status or do a new management plan our airstrips suffer another loss.
I live in southeast Oregon where it is great distances to and between official landing sites. Therefore, there are scores of uncharted airstrips out here, or were. We all know the importance of them, for use from an equipment failure safety stand point, but also pee stop, check stop safety stand point, or just a rest stop. We don't all fly 210s. No pee stop... a safety issue? We have all been there, and around airports where pilots are in way to big of a hurry to crowd in, get it on the ground,,, and out. A happy pilot is a safe pilot. It does with out a doubt, create safety issues each time one of these remote strips are closed down.
Was this done legally? BLM land management plans (RMPs) almost always provide for valid existing historical uses. Floating, Powerboating, Railroad, Camping, Aircraft Landing, Driving, Fishing, Hiking, Etc. all historical uses there. Aircraft landing at Bullrun was a valid existing historical use at the time of the RMP for that area. This use was wrongfully singled out, (discriminated against) and wrongfully terminated. All BLM management plan objectives state that the plan must consider and provide for "public health and safety". It does not appear that was rightfully considered when closing this airstrip. I have not read the Deschutes River Management Plan and appurtenant management documents thoroughly, as it specifically pertains to aircraft (but will be). So far I have seen no finding that justifies the closure action. Might not be there. My guess is, aircraft landing was snipped because it would be difficult to collect use fees from fly in traffic. A resource (MONEY) collection issue, not an on the ground resource protection issue. It is not mandatory for a new RMP to be done to change something such as this. If BLM is saying this, it is not right. It is probably a personal take no action choice. BLM can easily make this change in house, by Categorical Exclusion. It just takes someone with a little effort to accomplish it.
Bottom line, our safety, as these remote airstrips are concerned, has, and continues to be jeopardized. Remote airstrip closures all over is a serious safety issue for us all, and needs our attention for preservation. So what if someone uses them just to take a break, get your kids out of town, to go fishing, camping, hunting, hiking, these are the same people who will maintain them for all, when really needed. I will bet that the gravely ill float boater rounding the turn and seeing an airplane sitting there... well what might they think then. For the rest. Couldn't hear it land or take off over the sound of the train anyway.
Help protect THESE valuable resources. Call your Congressmen, Legislators. Be active. Land managers should not be legally allowed through management plans, to abolish these vital resources and create these safety issues. Particularly not arbitrarily.

Nicely put, PA12Vaquero.

PA12Vaquero wrote:I know this an old thread, but one that shouldn't be ignored. It has become the norm, for our land management agencies to close down airstrips (recognized or not) such as Bullrun for so call "resource protection" reasons. Each time OUR Land Managers designate OUR lands to a new status or do a new management plan our airstrips suffer another loss.
I live in southeast Oregon where it is great distances to and between official landing sites. Therefore, there are scores of uncharted airstrips out here, or were. We all know the importance of them, for use from an equipment failure safety stand point, but also pee stop, check stop safety stand point, or just a rest stop. We don't all fly 210s. No pee stop... a safety issue? We have all been there, and around airports where pilots are in way to big of a hurry to crowd in, get it on the ground,,, and out. A happy pilot is a safe pilot. It does with out a doubt, create safety issues each time one of these remote strips are closed down.
Was this done legally? BLM land management plans (RMPs) almost always provide for valid existing historical uses. Floating, Powerboating, Railroad, Camping, Aircraft Landing, Driving, Fishing, Hiking, Etc. all historical uses there. Aircraft landing at Bullrun was a valid existing historical use at the time of the RMP for that area. This use was wrongfully singled out, (discriminated against) and wrongfully terminated. All BLM management plan objectives state that the plan must consider and provide for "public health and safety". It does not appear that was rightfully considered when closing this airstrip. I have not read the Deschutes River Management Plan and appurtenant management documents thoroughly, as it specifically pertains to aircraft (but will be). So far I have seen no finding that justifies the closure action. Might not be there. My guess is, aircraft landing was snipped because it would be difficult to collect use fees from fly in traffic. A resource (MONEY) collection issue, not an on the ground resource protection issue. It is not mandatory for a new RMP to be done to change something such as this. If BLM is saying this, it is not right. It is probably a personal take no action choice. BLM can easily make this change in house, by Categorical Exclusion. It just takes someone with a little effort to accomplish it.
Bottom line, our safety, as these remote airstrips are concerned, has, and continues to be jeopardized. Remote airstrip closures all over is a serious safety issue for us all, and needs our attention for preservation. So what if someone uses them just to take a break, get your kids out of town, to go fishing, camping, hunting, hiking, these are the same people who will maintain them for all, when really needed. I will bet that the gravely ill float boater rounding the turn and seeing an airplane sitting there... well what might they think then. For the rest. Couldn't hear it land or take off over the sound of the train anyway.
Help protect THESE valuable resources. Call your Congressmen, Legislators. Be active. Land managers should not be legally allowed through management plans, to abolish these vital resources and create these safety issues. Particularly not arbitrarily.

WOW! Excellent first post! Well said.

Kurt

I really don’t think backcountry airstrips get closed for lack of money - at least that’s not the driving force. The driving force is the coalition of other wilderness users (floaters, fishermen, hikers, whatever) that hate the noise intrusion and mere existence of aircraft in the wilderness. They vastly outnumber pilots, are not sympathetic to aircraft, and they vote en mass to elect land managers who will side with them in the fight to keep wilderness just as “pristine” as they desire.

Which brings me back to why it is important not to advertise these airstrips for the whole world to explore, like motoadven does with virtually every one of this videos: more airplanes in the backcountry simply intensified the opposition. Fly the backcountry. Great. Just keep it to yourself or have a little bit of discretion.

skiermanmike wrote:I really don’t think backcountry airstrips get closed for lack of money - at least that’s not the driving force. The driving force is the coalition of other wilderness users (floaters, fishermen, hikers, whatever) that hate the noise intrusion and mere existence of aircraft in the wilderness. They vastly outnumber pilots, are not sympathetic to aircraft, and they vote en mass to elect land managers who will side with them in the fight to keep wilderness just as “pristine” as they desire.

Probably true, and unfortunately, the high-rpm long props many of us use generate high noise levels that draw a LOT of adverse attention. This is a pervasive problem: The backpackers want to eliminate ALL forms of motorized transport. The bike-riders want to ban the motorcycles and ATV riders. The ATV guys want the airplanes gone. The vegans want the fishermen and hunters banned. It's a "me-first" attitude that has become pervasive in our society...

skiermanmike wrote:Which brings me back to why it is important not to advertise these airstrips for the whole world to explore, like motoadven does with virtually every one of this videos: more airplanes in the backcountry simply intensified the opposition. Fly the backcountry. Great. Just keep it to yourself or have a little bit of discretion.

But how can we claim that we're asking the strips be kept open for emergency use, and even for non-emergency, but safety-enhancing reasons (potty breaks, etc.), and then turn around and ask that the locations of these strips be kept hidden from the public. The impression that makes is that we want to keep them only for ourselves, and not allow anyone else to do so – only "the elite" who already know about them...

I don't have any answers here, just lots of questions...

Unfortunately it’s the way it is these days . Surf spots, places to ski etc . People just love to publicly spray about where they go and how awesome it was with a camera in their own face . Lots of places that were once completely off the radar are now completely over run with packs of people. People unleashing too many specific details of really awesome places makes it too easy for people to find them with very little work on their part . Once again ............unfortunately it’s just the way it is these days .

Guess my post really has nothing to do with strips stating open so .... never mind

skiermanmike wrote: Fly the backcountry. Great. Just keep it to yourself or have a little bit of discretion.

This I agree with. I think most land managers would rather not have to deal with issues that become impossible to ignore because people are broadcasting every single thing they do on the internet for anyone to see. Land on a gravel bar and one or two people might see you do it...then put it on utube and twenty thousand people see it. Which one do you think will force a land manager to make a ruling on whether it's allowed or not?

Ya, ya...our lands...don't tread on me...sagebrush rebellion...g'damn gubment. We've all heard it. But in general, majority rules. If the majority of land users that management agencies hear from don't want airplanes there then that's how it's going to be, like it or not.

As for airstrips being necessary for the safety of pilots who drank too much coffee...I think that's a bit of a stretch, to put it politely. If anything it seems like an open invitation to justify closures due to a lack of appropriate bathroom facilities.

I could be wrong, but I've always thought there's a law-enforcement / national-security bias against backcountry airstrips because of past smuggling operations. I wonder if that played into OR closing all it's beaches to aircraft so long ago?

One thing I know for sure: if backcountry pilots were as interested in funding the RAF as they are in the latest gimmick Garmin came out with or removing a Horton to add a Sportsman cuff, we'd have a much bigger voice in the public lands conversation.

Agreed!

I also agree with Hammer and have considerable experience with the stealth approach. Little of my backcountry experience was recreational or on popular airstrips. Not knowing ahead of time where I might land, I didn't have prior permission. I was quiet always, and polite when I occasionally encountered people. I was never arrested, run off, or sued.

Consider population density in the west. I'm sure the res was more sparse, but each person occupied seven square miles when I was there.

Hammer thanks for mentioning the RAF. We as pilots are tiny group of people. Over the past two years I've joined the Oregon Pilots Association, the RAF, among others. This year I will join the seaplane pilots association even though I have no intention of flying a sea plane. Supporting these organizations that fight for our rights is important. Yeah I fly lightsport airplanes but when you are talking about less than the cost of 5 hours of flight for a years membership in most of these groups, it's just something we all need to do sort of like supporting Zzz. That being said I don't post the cool places I go on this website, because it is public. I've seen all of my favorite fishing places get raped due to people and some of this stuff just has to be kept quiet. Donate to the groups that help and fight for us! As well as BCP [emoji6].

After reading this I am scrapping a little project i was doing. I was putting a map together with owners permission of some of the private runways up here in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Most of them are farmers and ranchers like myself that I meet at flyin breakfasts and have their own grass strip and always looking for places to fly for a coffee and a good visit. But now I see how this could become abused if this map was made public. The internet is a bitter sweet kind of thing.