During the beautiful weather flyin at JC last week, I talked to several pilots who didn't like landing with tailwind to the south to keep from overflying the Bryant ranch house.
I did some reasearch and talked to Frank Lester, Idaho Div of Aeronautics Safety Manager, abouty the information in the Fly Idaho book. This Fly Idaho book in for information only and is not an official airport supplement. See page 5 of the Fly Idaho book for their disclaimer.

The State removed the runway preference several years ago. There is enough room to use runway 35 for landing and 17 for takeoff, just don't overfly the house. It is not on centerline and there is plenty of room to the east of the house. One persons displeasure of airplanes does not require unsafe operations.

Some of the aircraft landing Saturday had tailwinds steady of 5mph with gusts up to 15mph. If you remember your basics, that could add 30pmh to your touchdown speed. Also remember the coefficient of friction for wet grass is next to ice.

In cooperation with the State of Idaho Division of Aeronautics and Frank Lesters Safety Office, several of the CFI's have attempted to address and solve the aircraft accidents at Idaho's backcountry airstrips. Many are unsolved. We do know the vast majority are caused by weather factors and altitude.

Next year everyone that wants should land and takeoff into the wind for the safest runway operations. I am sure more to come on this subject.

No one on the ground will ever dictate how I am going to land. I have came around the house lots of times there is no reason to fly over it.
Use you head guys.......

If you, as the pilot in command, think that 5 knots of tailwind and 3500 feet of runway is not safe, than you should not take off or land in that direction.

The accidents that I have seen at Johnson Creek in the last few years have been either mechanical or pilot error or inexperience. They were not due to direction of takeoff or landing.

I still think that landing to the south and taking off to the north is the preferred operation if you think it is safe.

To take off to the south just to make a point when the wind is calm is not helpful and is not smart.

flyer

Not to burst any bubbles, but this issue has been talked about very recently before the BCP Fly In.

Quote from the caretaker at JC: "The women that owns the white house at the end of the runway (35) and her family are aviation friendly and likes watching the planes come and go. They just don't like the planes getting to close to the house".

This is from the "Johnson Creek or Bust" thread:

58Skylane wrote:

Resky wrote:Hopefully I can catch some of you before you leave for Johnson Creek and if not, maybe someone that is online can relay the message while camping at JC.

Just a touch of history that I learned since moving up here to Idaho. Something around 40 years ago, the people that own the white house to the south, also owned the airstrip that eventually became the state owned Johnson Creek airstrip. There were many negotiations involved in the donation of this land to the state for purposes of the wonderful airstrip that is now 3U2. In negotiations of the donation, one of the major requests was that all air operations be conducted north of the airstrip, avoiding their property to the south. The State agreed that this directive would be published in publications such as the A/FD and signage posted at the airstrip, etc. Along with the donation of the airstrip, permission was given to airport users to cross their property to hike to the tub, etc. The avoidance of the property to the south appears to be violated at a more frequent rate these days, more than likely due to the lack of knowledge of the history of 3U2. Landing and taking off in either direction is completely doable in most airplanes performance wise. It is important now more than ever to be good neighbors by landing south and taking off north.

Forty years ago, there was no vision that there could be 50 to 100 airplanes gathering on one weekend, flying out for breakfast every day, fly-outs to all the strips that Idaho is famous for, and generally using airplanes for enjoyment like no where else in the lower 48. Just be aware, that 3U2 or any of the other strips we love to frequent, were not established to be a general aviation facility like an airport servicing a small town, but rather as a place to enjoy the wonderful backcountry as a trailhead or camp ground. Please keep the fragile nature of these strips in mind when using them, and remember, the reason for some of the recommendations, may be for something not related to flying.

I'm not a policeman, or with the FAA or anything else, just a guy that has an airplane and the desire to use it in the Idaho Back Country, and also one that got his ears beat back a few years ago to open my eyes a bit on this very subject. Yes, I understand there have been complaints this year, and while I was there this afternoon, in a span of 15 minutes, two airplanes landed north with calm winds, one directly over the house. Would you please help me spread the word?

Thanks for listening.
Jack Kotaki

From the "Questions on Flying Into Johnson Creek" thread:

58Skylane wrote:Just a reminder, try your very best to stay away from the white house on the south end of the runway! On Sunday while I was there with some friends, one of our well known friends got a friendly ear full from the care taker . The lady that owns the house called the care taker about two other planes flying too close on Saturday (during the Super Cub Fly In).

When landing to the north. Stay to the right of the house.

When taking off to the south, stay to the left of the house and over the river.

The care taker was saying the family that frequents the house enjoy the planes and airstrip (in fact, they donated part of the south end of the strip). Just don't like the planes getting too close to the house.

Have fun and as always, fly safe!!

mr scout wrote:No one on the ground will ever dictate how I am going to land. I have came around the house lots of times there is no reason to fly over it.
Use you head guys.......

I have done the same and agree!

I only landed once with that tailwind before I switched sides for the rest of the weekend. I glanced at my groundspeed on short final and it was 75mph!! I barely cruise at 75. Touching down 25 mph over your normal touchdown speed opens up a whole can of worms. My airplane is squirrely enough at 50. Someone coming in with all their gear and full fuel for the weekend in the middle of the afternoon with 10kts of tailwind and JC quickly becomes a one way strip.... someone doesn't see you and taxis out onto the runway and you either land on them or go around... My airplane has amazing performance but at gross in the mountains she doesn't really want to climb when it's slow and going downwind. Pretty sure the homeowners would rather you went by 1/2 mile away at idle than landing in their living room when you cant clear the trees.

Quote from the caretaker at JC: "The women that owns the white house at the end of the runway (35) and her family are aviation friendly and likes watching the planes come and go. They just don't like the planes getting to close to the house".

This is good info to get out. This was my first time to JC and before I even made an approach from that end I had two different strangers approach me and tell me to make sure to stay far far away from that house. I was under the impression it was a really big deal to not land from that end till I saw some others doing it. I even had someone get pissy with me on the radio because I was landing 35 and not 17. I made an afternoon flight to check out my plane after working on it and it was blowing pretty good. Like the others said it's easy to stay well clear of the house and still fly a nice stable safe approach and land INTO the wind.

58 Skylane and Mr. Scout are both right ... never let anyone on the ground, even an ATC controller, dictate to a pilot when safety would be compromised. The FAA flight rules are extremely explicit about that. Only the PIC can make that call if there's a conflict.

Sure, follow noise abatement tactics whenever it's safe to do so. But we can never allow anything, even including the sincere wishes expressed by the most well-meaning and generous people in the world, cause one to fly counter to what's perceived as the most safe way to fly an airplane.

If the people living next door to Johnson Creek don't like airplanes flying over their house ... well, sorry, but it's inevitable you're going to get at least some of that with any public use airport or airstrip. That's even more the case when you've inevitably got lots of non-local pilots flying in, and you've got complicating factors such as surrounding high terrain, tricky winds, and potentially slick runway surfaces (wet grass having a friction coeficient approaching that of bare ice). That the owners who donated the land to the State for an airstrip are the ones who are the offendees, well, that's unfortunate. But it still goes with the territory.

If they're going to go bonkers every time a pilot does something different from what they want, they should give serious consideration to selling or donating the rest of their property ... or else just learn to deal with it.

nmflyguy wrote:If they're going to go bonkers every time a pilot does something different from what they want, they should give serious consideration to selling or donating the rest of their property ... or else just learn to deal with it.

I in no way mean to start a conflict!

But, I think the statement above is the wrong approach to take being that GA is in a very sensitive mode right now (as far as loosing airports). I think we as pilots are the ones that need to make a good impression on situations like this at JC and many other airstrips. Pretty simple to do.

Under normal/calm conditions, landing 17 and taking off 35 is most always doable. I would rather say that if a pilot is not comfortable landing at JC the proper, safe way (according to the winds, etc) and staying to the right or left of the white house, then that pilot needs to go to another airstrip he/she is comfortable at and/or get more mountain flying instruction/practice before coming back to airstrips like JC.

Other than maybe your first time in and out of JC (intimidation factor of the canyon, DA, etc.), JC is really a simple airstrip to fly in and out of on most occasions.

Superdave wrote:http://www.shortfield.com/sf_code/sf_video_pop.php?vid=76

The right correct way to land 35.

58Skylane wrote:

nmflyguy wrote:If they're going to go bonkers every time a pilot does something different from what they want, they should give serious consideration to selling or donating the rest of their property ... or else just learn to deal with it.

I in no way mean to start a conflict!

But, I think the statement above is the wrong approach to take being that GA is in a very sensitive mode right now (as far as loosing airports). I think we as pilots are the ones that need to make a good impression on situations like this at JC and many other airstrips. Pretty simple to do.

Under normal/calm conditions, landing 17 and taking off 35 is most always doable. I would rather say that if a pilot is not comfortable landing at JC the proper, safe way (according to the winds, etc) and staying to the right or left of the white house, then that pilot needs to go to another airstrip he/she is comfortable at and/or get more mountain flying instruction/practice before coming back to airstrips like JC.

Other than maybe your first time in and out of JC (intimidation factor of the canyon, DA, etc.), JC is really a simple airstrip to fly in and out of on most occasions.

58Skylane - I don't disagree with what you say about taking commonsense actions to respect noise abatement, but the bottom line here is that JC is probably the most famous "developed" backcountry airstrip in the USA, and therefore inevitably it's going to draw lots of newbies (me too, someday) who are going to offend the neighbors, no matter what they (or we) do or say ... the neighbors can complain all they want, but if we start advising newbie pilots to not perform what they think is a safe approach (i.e., land downwind, as one example in this thread), somebody's going to take the bait and is going to get killed unnecessarily. We're talkng life and death here, folks, not political correctness. If it ever gets to the point where GA safety is sacrificed to "sensitivities", then just be aware that the biggest threat by far to GA is the public's perception that GA is unsafe. Any attitude or set of expectations that leads to more GA accidents and fatalities is what's going to cause more and more airports and airstrips to close - and end GA as we know it - quicker than any other threat.

Landing into the wind is a mantra that is drilled into us from the first day we start flight training. The vast majority of landings occur on flat paved runways with unobstructed approaches utilizing an "airline" shallow approach. This is all good for those airports.

Once the pilot leaves the comfortable environs of the "normal" airport the degrees of complexity and pilot decision making increase geometrically.

Landing downwind quite often is the best choice due to the slope of the runway, obstructions on approach, go around options, turbulence, etc.

From Amy Hoover's excellent " Mountain and Canyon Flying Tips".

"Rule of Thumb: When computing runway gradient, every 1.0% grade equals a
10% change in effective runway length

A strong headwind is required to overcome the increase in landing roll that a downhill landing creates; if the wind is strong enough to cancel the effects of a large downhill slope, expect a lot of turbulence on the approach, particularly if there are obstacles or trees."

These are only a couple of the considerations a back country pilot must take into account.

In the best of all worlds all landings would be up hill into the wind with a wide open go around. But you cannot be a slave to what the flat land instructor's "rules".

TD

TomD wrote:Landing into the wind is a mantra that is drilled into us from the first day we start flight training. The vast majority of landings occur on flat paved runways with unobstructed approaches utilizing an "airline" shallow approach. This is all good for those airports.

In the best of all worlds all landings would be up hill into the wind with a wide open go around. But you cannot be a slave to what the flat land instructor's "rules".

TD

Tom - of course, runway slope is a factor to consider; I didn't and wouldn't say otherwise. In some situations landing uphill with the wind makes good sense.

But it's also not as simple a choice as you make it sound. In any case, the runway slope at Johnson Creek is only about 1% give or take, as I understand it, which is a relatively minor slope to deal with, and which is not at all uncommon even with paved runways.

But only a 10-knot tailwind, as opposed to a 10-knot headwind, makes a 20-knot difference in your ground speed. Which can make a huge difference in a pilot's ability to deal with a less-than ideal approach to landing ... not to mention that the kinetic energy involved in a crash, which is a function of ground speed (not airspeed), increases by the square of velocity ... meaning, if you run into or onto anything you didn't mean to, that 20 knots differential can easily mean the difference between walkng away after bending some sheet metal and having to have your body parts be collected with a broom and dustpan.

If you crank the numbers, for an airplane with a normal approach airspeed of 50 knots, the difference in kinetic energy in a crackup between 40 knots (10-kt headwind) and 60 knots (10 kt tailwind) is a factor of 2.25. In otherwords, the kinetc energy for the tailwind crackup is 225% that of the 10-kt headwind scenario.

And of course, a 20-knot tailwind (not an unusual condition at a mountain airstrtip) means a 40-knot difference in touchdown ground speed. Crank the numbers there, and you're looking at an increase of crash energy of 400%!

In any event, the only person who can make the call on what is a safe approach vs. an unsafe approach is the PIC in the cockpit, not you or I .... regardless of how prejudiced he/she is by flatlander landing experience or not.

58Skylane - I don't disagree with what you say about taking commonsense actions to respect noise abatement, but the bottom line here is that JC is probably the most famous "developed" backcountry airstrip in the USA, and therefore inevitably it's going to draw lots of newbies (me too, someday) who are going to offend the neighbors, no matter what they (or we) do or say ... the neighbors can complain all they want, but if we start advising newbie pilots to not perform what they think is a safe approach (i.e., land downwind, as one example in this thread), somebody's going to take the bait and is going to get killed unnecessarily. We're talkng life and death here, folks, not political correctness. If it ever gets to the point where GA safety is sacrificed to "sensitivities", then just be aware that the biggest threat by far to GA is the public's perception that GA is unsafe. Any attitude or set of expectations that leads to more GA accidents and fatalities is what's going to cause more and more airports and airstrips to close - and end GA as we know it - quicker than any other threat.

There's also the responsiblity on the Newbies part, like myself, to research the best practices for landing at JC. I knew before I went, don't overfly the house unless safety dictates otherwise. Safety triumphs, of course, but no excuse to not follow best practices when it is safe to do so.

Now it was recommended a good approach was to fly in from the south but stay to the right (east) side of the canyon and that was, apparently, ok.
And while there, several people landed from the south but avoided flying directly over or close to the house.

I forgot to mention a couple other factors when it comes to deciding how to make a safe approach to Johnson Creek or any other high-country/mountain airtrip, that can make it really challenging for the newbie, or even the more experienced mountain pilot:

1) Johnson Creek is at just under 5,000 feet elevation ... and most visitors come there during the summer, so flatlanders or others who aren't used to high country flying are dealing with the effects of high density altitude may be in for some surprises with respect to the performance of their aircraft. Higher DA makes for higher true airspeeds, which can be a really critical factor when maneuvering for approach to landing to an airstrip surrounded by tight, high terrain. Higher DA means higher groundspeeds, meaning the pilot has less time to react and correct a bad approach, and also because of that factor, pilots are going to be tempted (required?) to make steeper turns in order to avoid hitting the surrounding terrain, and that in turn can easily lead to stall-spin accidents

2) Johnson Creek would be considered the "low country" around here, in the Southern Rockies, where many of our airstrips (and even paved public use airports) are at elevations upwards of 7,000-9,000 feet. Whatever I wrote above about approaches to Johnson Creek, it's much moreso here in this part of the world.

We can all pat ourselves on the backs and sniff that we are more sensitive than thou when it comes to noise abatement, and we always know in advance and are perfectly prepared for how to make the best, most politically correct approaches to landing ... and we would never think even one microsecond of not doing 100% of the homework necessary to eliminate or minimize all risk factors such that making a safe approach becomes a non-issue, so all we need concern ourselves with is the sensitivities of the neighbors, because we're all so perfect ... but the bottom line is, lots of pilots aren't as perfect as "we" . Regardless of one's state of perfection, the only thing that really matters in the end is the safety of the pilots and their passengers in what is, by any rational assessment, a challenging aviation environment.

If we get that part right, we'd be a lot better off than we are today - just look at all the threads on BCP of late about fatal accidents at mountain airsrtips. We had an accident here in New Mexico just two weeks ago at a paved mountain airport (KSRR - Sierra Blanca, el. 6,814) that wiped out most of two families (five fatalities, with two teenagers left in the hospital as orphans), with the early reports suggesting the flatlander pilot from Texas more than likely overloaded his aircraft (5 adults + 2 male teen passengers plus baggage in a 6-pass. C310R???) and didn't realize DA would bite him and his unfortunate passengers in the ass.

By comparison, if we don't get flying safety figured out better than we have so far nothing else really matters a hoot, in my humble opinion.

I was at JC for the first time this year (at the SC.org fly-in the week before BCP's) and from watching the activities I don't think the issue is an approach to land from the South (unless you inspect their roof in the process) when a good wind required it to be safe but I will say that if I lived there and had DONATED the property for the runway/park and had to listen to repeated up close and personal fire breathing take-offs (especially those going South just for the ease of where they were going) I'd be shopping at Army Surplus for some AAA hardware to use for yard art!

You know land safe whatever it takes but if the wind to too strong for you to safely take-off North either don’t go or if you just ‘have to’ at least have the courtesy (once you’re up and stable) to pull the power back until you are well past the house and then use the remaining 9 or 10 miles of canyon to get out.

You’ll have to pardon me, because after 4 days at JC my personal desire for a fire breathing 180/185 has be muffled. Actually, if I had one I don't think I could afford the ear plugs and time it would take to walk the flight line handing out free ear plugs and apologizing profusely before the auditory offense of each and every canyon take-off. Oh and so as to not disparage only Sedgwick County Kansas there were a couple of Maules and several "Steroid Cubs" that ranked apologies to!

Oh, and if you don't like landing downwind on the JC pool table you'll love the Reklaw Ranch fly-in in Texas... the grass strip there is about the same length and width as JC but it is carved out of the East Texas tall pines and traverses a couple of hills and the valley between plus it undulates side to side a good bit and every time I've been there they ALWAYS land North regardless of wind (property owners requirement) and you see everything from cubs to 310's in there and the wind is 90% south that time of the year!

OC

Ps. what’s that you say… sorry you’ll have to speak up I went to JC last month.

After seeing this thread, and being the originator of the thread in question last week, I tried to get in touch with Frank Lester, but, alas, he wasn’t in today and won’t be back until Tuesday. I stand by my observations for the same reasons as last week, until I get a clarification from Frank. I did note that the comment is still present in the AF/D, recommending north operations. Common sense must still prevail.

Johnson Creek’s location makes operations different than that of an most airfields in the Midwest for example. Not that its harder or easier, just different. Operating in and out of it, does not afford the same conveniences, like instrument approaches, lights, multiple runways, clearways, AWOS etc. This makes operations different, just by its very nature. Adding to the mix, a house lies directly off the end of the runway, who’s owner’s family happens to have donated the land to let the airfield be what it is today.

Many of these strips in the mountains have limitations, I can think of a few of the longer, more widely used strips, Big Creek, and Smiley Creek that are plenty long, but if there is a south wind at either, takeoffs may be questionable, or a north wind, could make a Big Creek landing a questionable safe operation for some. These are just a part of flying in the area that make it different than operating an airplane in areas that are flat and lower elevations.

Downwind operations are something that some have a phobia with. With many one way strips, I think it is an aspect of flying that a new–to-the-area pilot should experience and be comfortable with before coming to the area. Better yet, take a mountain flying course to make you as comfortable as possible and get exposure to the different flying situations. I think that if anyone frequents these strips for a few days, he will encounter some downwind operations at least a few times, even if its only a couple of knots.

I hope that we don’t all develop the attitude that the family at the south end is an adversary, after all, they gave us use of their land to use. There is no FAR being violated by taking off to the south or landing to the north at Johnson Creek. I am one, that will respect the wishes of the family and conduct my operations north of the airfield. If conditions do not allow a safe operation and abide by their wishes, I’ll wait until I can.

Jack

I made my last two landing with a strong tail wind and had no problems, grass, uphill and 5000' I felt gave me lots of room. For me it was a toss-up which direction to go. Every plane and pilot is different and pilots should consider the variables. Good discussion.

nmflyguy wrote:We're talkng life and death here, folks, not political correctness.

Good discussion of course rules/standard entries for JC, but it's gotten a bit dramatic. We're not talking life and death, we're talking about staying to the east of the house if conditions suggest that landing to the north would be preferable - it's just not that difficult. If you suspect that any aspect of visiting JC is beyond your current experience or comfort level, take a friend who is experienced there or find an instructor to show you the ropes.

I don't land with a tail wind. Been using JC for my home base of two week vacations for the past 11 years and have landed past the house only once and that was cause the north end of the canyon and strip was in fog in early morning when I was returning from an overnighter. It's no big difficult maneuver to stay over the creek and to the right of the house till you pass it and then bank left and then right to line up. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be in the mountains landing at these short and non standard strips. WHen I go to Idaho I consider myself a guest in their home,so to speak, and if the lady in the house asks me to fly to the right of her house then I'll oblige as long as it's safe... I don't take off to the south into rising terrain even though my Maule can do it... I also fly in the morning and quit flying after 11 oclock. I return to JC sometimes as late as 9 PM, since it's still quite daylight up there then... many times wind comes from the south in the heat of the day and from the North evenings and mornings if at all...so if you had to land on 35 I'll bet it was in the middle of the day. Mountain flying requires a bit more knowlege and ability than flat land pavement flying...