Grass stips.

[slick1]

A pilot alleges that he landed his plane on a grass strip, next to the paved runway. In doing so, he struck a "runway marker" which was allegedly obscured by tall grass. He's blaming the airport for the damage to his airplane and wants reimbursement for the damages.
As a pilot who has never felt the need to use the turf, (especially when there's a perfectly good asphalt strip righ next to it), I'm not sure about who's responsible for the incident. He claims that the NTSB ruled that the accident was purely caused by the negligence of the airport board, (I haven't seen the NTSB report, if there is one). I'm thinking theres an FAR or some rule in the AIM which will help us confirm or deny this guys allegations/shifting of blame.

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Fury220]

Hmm...I can't quote FARs or anything on the subject, but, as a young pilot, I'm always ready to share my limited knowledge...haha (as misguided as it might be...)


To me, this is a common sense thing. If the airport didn't have a NOTAM for an issue with one of its runways, the airport is responsible for managing its facilities and keeping them in good operating condition. If all applicable publications indicated that the grass strip was in operation, the pilot was operating under that premise and wasn't negligent. In this case, the airport was negligent in not advising pilots of the conditions of the runway.

On the other hand, if there was a NOTAM (or similar) about the long grass at the field, the pilot was negligent in operating at that strip.

I'd tend to agree with the NTSB on this one (if there's a report, that is).


Let's not forget that it's his right as a pilot to use all available landing surfaces at the field. He doesn't have to "justify" his desire to land on the grass strip. Some pilots (i.e. PPL students) have a lot of justification for grass strip landings. I sure as hell did a lot of soft field work prior to my checkride. It's good experience, and a confidence builder.

My two cents.

 

[Immelman]

Was the grass area designated as a runway suitable for landing? If so, he has every right, unless notam'd, to expect that the grass is suitable for landing.. might be a good idea to inspect it first but hey, stuff happens.... now if this dude is just landing alongside the sole (paved) runway to be cool, tough luck!

I've only landed on turf a handfull of times, but in all cases it was more enjoyable than landing on pavement... just smoother & softer. Greaser landings were that much easier.... so I personally don't consider your friend that much of a yahoo for wanting to land there.

 

[guido411]

As a pilot who has never felt the need to use the turf, (especially when there's a perfectly good asphalt strip righ next to it), I'm not sure about who's responsible for the incident.

Apparently you've never flown a tailwheel aircraft in a crosswind.

Don't mean to bust your chops, but don't fault a guy for doing something that he allowed to do and should not present any exhorbitant amount of risk (assuming it was a designated runway).

 

[avbug]

First of all, you're seeking legal advice on a web board. Hire an attorney. A few attorney's visit this site, none can help you here, though you may still get some good unofficial counsel.

If you work for the airport, the airport should already have an attorney on retainer. If it's a municipality, most certainly the municipality had better have an attorney on retainer. It's usually a city and county office.

Second of all, not nearly enough information has been provided, as evidenced by the fact that each respondant needs to ask questions in order to answer the question.

Did the pilot in question (PIQ) have authorization to land on the grass strip?

Is the grass strip a runway?

Is the grass strip commonly used as a runway.

Is the PIQ local?

What is the relationship between the PIQ and the airport?

Who had a duty to ensure the strip was free of obstacles?

Does the entity responsible for the field normally ensure that the strip is obstacle free and clear of weeds or brush?

Is the strip marked or listed in any publication as a runway or designated landing area?

Is the grass strip physically marked as a runway or takeoff/landing area?

Are any signs, placards, pamphlets, publications or is there any other information detailing that strip as a landing area?

Does the airport attempt to warn of hazards on the strip?

Is the airport insured? If so, what does the insurance company have to say about this strip?

You stated "us," in describing the entity or organization attempting to disprove this pilot's claim. Who is "us," and how do you fit in?

If in deed you are part of the "us" that is attempting to disprove the pilot's claim, and you are aware of the potential NTSB report, why have you not located it and read it?

You stated that a runway marker was located on the strip, but did not elaborate. Please do so.

You also stated that the runway marker was obscured by tall fauna. Elaborate on that, also. Who had a duty to keep that marker clear?

Did the incident take place in daylight, or at night?

Is the runway available for night landings?

What type aircraft was involved? Some aircraft have much better forward visibility than others...some have little or none.

What was the landing pilot's experience level?

Have you looked in the regulations at all, or are you hoping someone else will do it for you?

Has legal action already been filed? If so, at what stage of litigation is this matter presently?

With respect to your feelings toward landing on grass, don't let your own inexperience in that area, or general prejudice, attempt to determine the validity of the other pilot's actions. Grass runways are a perfectly legitimate source, and if I'm paying for the tires, I'll certainly choose grass over asphalt for longevity. Tires used on grass only will all but last forever...you'll change them for age before you'll change them for wear. Not so for landings on asphalt, macadam, tarmac, cement, whatever.