MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Which technique?Not if they actually understand the technique.
Which technique?Not if they actually understand the technique.
The one the AFH describes for short field landings (the subject of this thread), using the definition of aiming point the the AFH uses for the landing tasks (as opposed to landing hot from an ILS on an ATP checkride).Which technique?
Like I said if you use something other than The manufactures procedure you’re going to get a different result. That doesn’t matter whether you’re differing from 172 procedure or a jet procedure. Nobody said anything about hot landings.The one the AFH describes for short field landings (the subject of this thread), using the definition of aiming point the the AFH uses for the landing tasks (as opposed to landing hot from an ILS on an ATP checkride).
Agree to disagree.Yeah but we also disagree on what constitutes an accuracy landing.
Same to you. And the horse you rode in on.Agree to disagree.
I’m confused how that’s incorrect. If you’re flying a stabilized approach to your touchdown point during an accuracy landing, you will overshoot. The transition has to begin prior to reaching that point, I’m not sure why there’s so much confusion here. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. @MauleSkinner
Exactly my thoughts. Suppose I’ve never seen it demonstrated this way from any instructor I’ve encountered.How are you touching down AT your aiming point for a normal landing?
How/why are you touching down BEFORE your aiming point for a short field landing?
Where does the ACS talk about touchdown relative to your aiming point?How/why are you touching down BEFORE your aiming point for a short field landing? Wouldn't that be a disapproval on a practical test?
The ACS makes no mention of an aiming point for either a normal landing or a short-field landing. It only mentions touchdown point.Where does the ACS talk about touchdown relative to your aiming point?
As the caption states, that is a diagram whose purpose is to illustrate a stabilized approach, not a landing flare.View attachment 131467
Where is the aiming point for this aircraft then? The picture shows the airplane in a constant stabilized glidepath, with no floating, all the way to touch down to a point on the runway.
Ok. Got it. So the aircraft in that illustration is gliding towards an aiming point. And there is still expected to be somewhat of a float prior to touchdown, only that the float is "minimal" as compared to a normal landing.As the caption states, that is a diagram whose purpose is to illustrate a stabilized approach, not a landing flare.
You are over-analyzing and experts arguing with each other in this thread isn't going to help you. Go practice it. The ACS does not care about the relationship between your aiming point and your touchdown point. It only cares about your touchdown point. Anything else is technique.
This is why it’s important to actually fly an airplane prior to taking your checkride.The ACS makes no mention of an aiming point for either a normal landing or a short-field landing. It only mentions touchdown point.
The AFH explains that, for a normal landing, you should use an aiming point which precedes your touchdown point to account for floating. For a short-field landing, the AFH makes no mention at all of an aiming point and the graphic for a short-field in the AFH implies there is no floating at all.
Part of my question is if I should be using an aiming point that precedes my touchdown point when doing short field landings and, if so, how far prior to my touchdown point should my aiming point be?
If I'm not using an aiming point that precedes my touchdown point, does that mean my aiming point IS ALSO my touchdown point? if so, how do I fly the aircraft to achieve this?
For a normal landing, I usually touch down at the 1000 foot markers and I aim for the 500 foot markers. Carrying an approach speed of 65 knots into ground effect usually makes me float about 500 foot.This is why it’s important to actually fly an airplane prior to taking your checkride.
If your aiming point is the 1000 foot markers, where do you touchdown on a normal landing, and where do you touchdown on a Shortfield landing?
Once you establish those relationships Using your techniques, you can adjust your aiming point to touchdown where do you want to.
All my short field landings during check rides were pretty firm. I didn't bounce and the dpes never said anything.What have you guys seen for DPEs expectations of how "soft" a "short" landing must be? A day or two ago, an instructor called my short-field practice a "carrier landing" - it was dead-on the the target point, and firm. Not slam-the-main-gear-through-the-wing-and-explode-the-tires firm, but decidedly not a "soft" landing. My approach is to get into ground effect about one center stripe before the target spot (the 1,000' marks), then cut power to drop the plane onto the target. With full flaps in a Cherokee, it works quite consistently.
So, my question is whether it's OK to be a bit firm in order to nail the target landing spot? Will a DPE accept that approach?
I guess I could go back to my first question: if your normal technique using the short field speed gets you down on the runway with minimal float why change techniques?For a normal landing, I usually touch down at the 1000 foot markers and I aim for the 500 foot markers. Carrying an approach speed of 65 knots into ground effect usually makes me float about 500 foot.
For a short-field landing, I have also been trying to touch down at the 1000 foot markers, but how I've been accomplishing that has been very confusing. My instructor has had me do it with and without an imaginary 50 foot obstacle at the runway threshold. I've tried gliding it all the way down to the 1000 foot markers on a stabilized glidepath (and touching down on them without any floating and it worked just fine and wasn't hard). I've also done it by selecting an aiming point about 400 feet prior to the 1000 foot markers and floating to the 1000 foot markers. We've also done the Chop and Drop method after clearing the imaginary 50 foot obstacle. In that case the plane gets pretty un-stabilized but it does get down and land fast.
I just didn't know what the best technique is for the practical test. I think I know now.
I guess I could go back to my first question: if your normal technique using the short field speed gets you down on the runway with minimal float why change techniques?
Yes. When I did it the #2 method, where we chopped power and pitched down to maintain 61 knots until entering ground effect, I noticed we touched down earlier than method #1. So I guess that picture isn't even accurate in terms of glide path if you chopped power all the way immediately after clearing your obstacle.View attachment 131476
Another part of it is #1 is a precision landing procedure i.e. touch down at a specific point as in what the ACS specifies.
#2 and the the Cessna POH says is probably shorter approach allowing you to touch down sooner if the runway allows you to do so, which they commonly do when they have obstacle near the end of the runway.
Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Yes, I agree there’s contradictory information out there (and here)…Because I don't consider floating 300-500 feet to be "minimal float".
Take a look at how Embry-Riddle presents the short-field approach and landing. They clearly show that the plane flies a direct glide path down to a touchdown point with zero floating. Their verbal instructions in that video even tell you to fly it that way, by progressively pulling power and pitching up so as to maintain a constant glidepath down to your touchdown point. They explicitly contrasted it with a normal approach and landing which shows the plane floating during the roundout and flare and imply to NOT do it the same way as a normal landing. Then I noticed that the AFH presents a short-field in the same way as Embry-Riddle does, but I didn't realize that the AFH is only showing you the approach segment but not the landing segment. On top of that I noticed that the ACS specifically mentions "minimal float".
I went up with my instructor and one time we did a short-field approach and landing directly down to a touchdown point maintaining a constant glide path with with almost zero float (like in the Embry-Riddle video) and I thought that's how it should be done.
However I began to ask questions because the procedure for a short-field approach and landing in the POH specifies doing it differently and it was my impression that the POH trumps the ACS and AFH. Since doing the procedure according to the POH causes me to float about 300-400 feet with an approach speed of 61 knots, I began to get confused as to what the hell is going on. I watched more videos about it and some of them mentioned using an aiming point which I thought that was something used for a normal landing only. But no those videos were talking about it in association with a short-field approach and landing, which I thought according to Embry-Riddle and the AFH the aiming point WAS the touchdown point, which confused me more. To be honest I am still not clear on what is officially the correct technique. The correct techniqe seems to further vary based on whether you are doing a short-field on a practical test vs a short-field in the real world.
Whenever I brought these question up with my instructor he just kept telling me that it doesn't really matter how I do it and to just make sure I hit my spot and do my after touchdown procedure (flaps, brakes, elevator, aileron). I guess ultimately he is right.
Do you agree that some of this information is contradictory and at least understand why I was confused?
why would they tell me a flare height?Note that there are no target speeds, no flare height
One of the things people sometimes don't realize is, at one time, there was an assumption in manual checklists that pilot knew stuff that more modern manuals assume they don't. How else can one account for such things as checklist items to add power for takeoff? Take that older Cherokee manual. It has a landing distance vs density altitude graph which specifies 40 degrees of flaps, no wind, level runway, for a short field at two different weights. Then, just before the "best technique" paragraph @StraightnLevel posted, it explains landings in general. The underlying assumption is, what more do you really need?why would they tell me a flare height?
I posted it on POA before but my Favorite is the Bellanca Cruisemaster Manual. The landing section says something like "Your Bellanca Cruisemaster lands conventionally, other pilots will be impressed with your landings"Here's a question: The ACS says:
Use manufacturer’s recommended procedures for airplane configuration and braking
The POH for the Cherokee I am training in says nothing about soft- and short-field landing other than a loose recommendation for the use of flaps. How do you meet this requirement when there isn't a recommended procedure?
This Comanche didn't follow the Piper POH - so did he really land?I posted it on POA before but my Favorite is the Bellanca Cruisemaster Manual. The landing section says something like "Your Bellanca Cruisemaster lands conventionally, other pilots will be impressed with your landings"
I guess that means if you don't impress the DPE you didn't use the manufactures recommendations.
Brian
Last question, what is the FAA's definition of minimal float? I can not find any specification.Yes, I agree there’s contradictory information out there (and here)…
It really doesn’t matter what you (or I) consider to be minimal float…it’s the FAA’s definition that’s controlling. If your instructor won’t give you further guidance, I’d suggest asking your DPE.
I will also suggest going back and reading Post 61 again.
The FAA does specify the maximum distance to touch down after the aim point, perhaps that will suffice as the definition. My ancient copy of the PTS say at or within 200 feet beyond a specified point.Last question, what is the FAA's definition of minimal float? I can not find any specification.
Last question, what is the FAA's definition of minimal float? I can not find any specification.
They don’t specifically define it, probably for very good reasons…different airplanes and different techniques will vary in what would be considered normal float for a short field landing. If you’re using appropriate speed and technique for your airplane, you’ll be fine.Last question, what is the FAA's definition of minimal float? I can not find any specification.
That doesn’t state how much float is allowed. It states where the touchdown can be, regardless of the amount of float.It’s stated specifically in the ACS that’s been posted several times now.
Within 200 ft of the specified point or touchdown zone.
That doesn’t state how much float is allowed. It states where the touchdown can be, regardless of the amount of float.
Because the ACS has no specification for float. Honestly, it's more of a target landing exercise than a true short field.That doesn’t state how much float is allowed. It states where the touchdown can be, regardless of the amount of float.
If they meant it to say that, they would have used “aiming point” instead of “specified point,” or somehow stated that the applicant should aim at and touch down within 200 feet beyond the specified point.Eh, the distance between the specified point and actual touchdown pointis the max allowable distance (200ft) for all things, to include float.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
The specified point is where you say wheels are going to touch. You can't be short of that point and you can't be more than 200 feet past it. Pretty simple.If they meant it to say that, they would have used “aiming point” instead of “specified point,” or somehow stated that the applicant should aim at and touch down within 200 feet beyond the specified point.
If they meant it to say that, they would have used “aiming point” instead of “specified point,” or somehow stated that the applicant should aim at and touch down within 200 feet beyond the specified point.
Your response was to a question about how far you can float. The touchdown requirement is the end of the float, but says nothing about where it begins. There is no set maximum float distance allowed.I never said aiming point. Again, the ACS seems pretty clear; touchdown within 200ft of a designated spot.
![]()
That doesn’t state how much float is allowed. It states where the touchdown can be, regardless of the amount of float.
These two posts are not inconsistent with each other.Eh, the distance between the specified point and actual touchdown pointis the max allowable distance (200ft) for all things, to include float.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
I agree with that; I’ve always believed float is a symptom of too much airspeed. During a short field approach and landing, 1.3Vso/bottom of the white arc/mfg recommended airspeed (if published) plus gust factor is the target airspeed, +10/-5.These two posts are not inconsistent with each other.
The problem with “how much float is ‘minimal’” is that it’s isolating a single factor for micrometer measurement when the concept varies depending on a number of factors in combination. …