How do perform short field landings for practical test

MauleSkinner said:
That doesn’t state how much float is allowed. It states where the touchdown can be, regardless of the amount of float.
Click to expand...

TCABM said:
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.
Click to expand...
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. KISS: approaching at 60 KTS and the same designated spot to touch down, will you float the same distance down the runway with 0 KTS headwind as with 30 KTS headwind?
 
midlifeflyer said:
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. …
Click to expand...
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.

Minimal float as discussed in Chapter 9 of the AFH seems to focus on a constant descent angle and appropriate airspeed to achieve an outcome of minimal float. For short field landings, the conversation adds use of one setting less than full flaps on the approach and full flaps when power is removed, requiring additional nose down input to manage airspeed within the limits to touchdown within 200’ of the desired spot.

Maybe I’m under thinking this, but as mentioned elsewhere, the short field landing is simply a spot landing under very controlled conditions to achieve a desired performance outcome. Add an obstacle and the AFH recommends managing the pattern and initial altitude to drive the steeper angle necessary to avoid the obstacle while also touching down at the desired spot.

I guess maybe I’m putting less emphasis on the aim point, because where the descent angle intersects the runway is aim point and that point should be stable in the windscreen all the way down. Controlling energy for the target airspeed is all that’s left. Manage that successfully and float is minimal; no different than any other landing.
 
TCABM said:
Maybe I’m under thinking this, but as mentioned elsewhere, the short field landing is simply a spot landing under very controlled conditions to achieve a desired performance outcome. Add an obstacle and the AFH recommends managing the pattern and initial altitude to drive the steeper angle necessary to avoid the obstacle while also touching down at the desired spot.

I guess maybe I’m putting less emphasis on the aim point, because where the descent angle intersects the runway is aim point and that point should be stable in the windscreen all the way down. Controlling energy for the target airspeed is all that’s left. Manage that successfully and float is minimal; no different than any other landing.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you are underthinking it at all. That is exactly what I meant by the post you quoted. “Minimum float” is less a goal than it is a result of good technique.

We can quibble about the importance of the aim point. I think its selection is key (and it might not be in the runway) and, as you said, should remain stable as a way of gauging your progress.
 
TCABM said:
Ahhhhh; what a much better way to put that.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of applicability to the distinction between goal and result. It's just an application of the difference between theory and practice.

Another example is touching down on the upwind wheel first in a crosswind landing. The goal is alignment with no drift through appropriate rudder and aileron inputs. The result is that you will touch down on the upwind wheel if there is still a crosswind at that point, and both wheels if it dissipates close to the ground. It's fun to watch a pilot touch down on one wheel with no crosswind because they made it a goal.
 
I still don't know how to do a short field landing.

I can hit my touchdown point, but in order to do that I have to set my aiming point 500 feet before my touchdown point just like I do for a normal landing with a 65 knot approach speed. For the short-field, I approach at 61 and enter ground effect at 61 and progressively slow down and reduce power so as to touch down at the spot. There doesn't seem to be any science to it other than just feeling it out and jockeying the throttle and pitch as needed to make it work.

I tried setting my aiming point 300 feet before my touchdown point to account for the lower approach speed but I kept floating right past the touchdown point. I tried progressively reducing power and slowing down to 55 knots when about 100 feet above the runway but then it felt like I technically wasn't stabilized in the approach.

I still don't know what the official definition of "minimum float" is. With me having an aiming point 500 feet before my touchdown point, that means I'm floating 500 feet. I don't think that is very minimal.

I don't understand this maneuver at all or what the FAA is looking for here. To be honest, I don't think the FAA knows themselves what they are looking for. They call it a short-field landing but yet it isn't accomplished by following the POH procedure for the short-field? What??? If they just want to see accuracy then they should call it an accuracy landing. At a minimum they should define their "minimum float" term.

My instructor doesn't really have any answer to these questions and I don't think he understands the maneuver either.
 
Last edited:
If you’re floating, you’re carrying too much airspeed. Is the POH approach speed based on being at gross weight?

Is the plane at gross weight when you’re performing the maneuver?

Have you tried to do this at a real short field?
 
TCABM said:
If you’re floating, you’re carrying too much airspeed. Is the POH approach speed based on being at gross weight?

Is the plane at gross weight when you’re performing the maneuver?

Have you tried to do this at a real short field?
Click to expand...
Yes it is the published speed at a max weight of 2400 lbs. No, we are not at max weight but since there is no other published speed and no guidance given in the POH on how to reduce speed based on weight, we have been keeping our approach speed at 61.

No I have not done this at an actual short field. I don't see how that would be helpful since I can't get a straight answer out of anybody I ask on how to perform the maneuver in the first place.
 
Instead of using 1.3 times Vso on short final, use 1.2 times Vso. Do this first with your CFI to get familiar with slow flight at minimum altitude.

-Skip
 
TCABM said:
See page 5 of the linked document.

Click to expand...
That's helpful. Thank you.

So once I correct for this, it would just be a matter of holding this approach speed into ground effect and figuring out how far the plane will float until touchdown? And then adjusting my aim point accordingly so that I touch down at my spot every time?

What should my power setting be on approach? The less power I have the steeper my glide path will be which probably impacts float distance as well. Would a power setting of 1500 on final be ok? Should I try to do these with power at idle?
 
FinalApproach said:
I still don't know how to do a short field landing.

I can hit my touchdown point, but in order to do that I have to set my aiming point 500 feet before my touchdown point just like I do for a normal landing with a 65 knot approach speed. For the short-field, I approach at 61 and enter ground effect at 61 and progressively slow down and reduce power so as to touch down at the spot. There doesn't seem to be any science to it other than just feeling it out and jockeying the throttle and pitch as needed to make it work.

I tried setting my aiming point 300 feet before my touchdown point to account for the lower approach speed but I kept floating right past the touchdown point. I tried progressively reducing power and slowing down to 55 knots when about 100 feet above the runway but then it felt like I technically wasn't stabilized in the approach.

I still don't know what the official definition of "minimum float" is. With me having an aiming point 500 feet before my touchdown point, that means I'm floating 500 feet. I don't think that is very minimal.

I don't understand this maneuver at all or what the FAA is looking for here. To be honest, I don't think the FAA knows themselves what they are looking for. They call it a short-field landing but yet it isn't accomplished by following the POH procedure for the short-field? What??? If they just want to see accuracy then they should call it an accuracy landing. At a minimum they should define their "minimum float" term.
Click to expand...
"Minimum float" is not the same as "no float." You are doing fine. The rule of thumb is to touch down within the first third of the runway. If you float 500 feet past the threshold, that means you can land in the first third of a 1500' runway. You are well within standards.
 
dmspilot said:
"Minimum float" is not the same as "no float." You are doing fine. The rule of thumb is to touch down within the first third of the runway. If you float 500 feet past the threshold, that means you can land in the first third of a 1500' runway. You are well within standards.
Click to expand...
No, 500 feet is not within standards. The ACS for PPL specifies a landing no more than 200 feet beyond the target point.


Touch down within 200 feet beyond the specified point, threshold markings or runway numbers, with no side drift, minimum float, and with the airplane’s longitudinal axis aligned with and over runway centerline
 
StraightnLevel said:
No, that is not within standards. The ACS for PPL specifies a landing no more than 200 feet beyond the target point.

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]
  1. Touch down within 200 feet beyond the specified point, threshold markings or runway numbers, with no side drift, minimum float, and with the airplane’s longitudinal axis aligned with and over runway centerline
[/COLOR]
Click to expand...
If you float 500 feet, touch down within 200 feet beyond where the examiner specifies, and your touchdown point is within the first 1/3 of the runway, how is that not within standards?
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you float 500 feet, touch down within 200 feet beyond where the examiner specifies, and your touchdown point is within the first 1/3 of the runway, how is that not within standards?
Click to expand...
Stating a "rule of thumb" when discussing an ACS checkride requirement with a very specific limit doesn't seem very helpful. The performance limits are clearly stated.

I would surmise that floating 500 feet and then landing at 199 feet beyond the target point isn't going to go over well with the DPE.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Stating a "rule of thumb" when discussing an ACS checkride requirement with a very specific limit doesn't seem very helpful. The performance limits are clearly stated.

I would surmise that floating 500 feet and then landing at 199 feet beyond the target point isn't going to go over well with the DPE.
Click to expand...
what “rule of thumb” is being stated?

And FWIW, Surmising something false is about the same as assuming something false.
 
FinalApproach said:
No I have not done this at an actual short field. I don't see how that would be helpful since I can't get a straight answer out of anybody I ask on how to perform the maneuver in the first place
Click to expand...
That may be because you are overthinking it. The lack of excessive float is the result of doing the rest correctly, not a parameter independent of context. Be on airspeed with a stable descent in the proper configuration, and your float will not be excessive. It’s not any more complicated than that. There’s no hidden meaning.
 
StraightnLevel said:
No, 500 feet is not within standards. The ACS for PPL specifies a landing no more than 200 feet beyond the target point.


Touch down within 200 feet beyond the specified point, threshold markings or runway numbers, with no side drift, minimum float, and with the airplane’s longitudinal axis aligned with and over runway centerline
Click to expand...
And the target point is where you say you are going to land. You need your wheels to touch on that point or no more than 200 feet past it. That is not the same as an aiming point.
 
My instructor showed me how to "drag the plane by the prop" "hang the plane by the prop"onto the runway to land short. I did it ok?
I remember in my mind doing very poorly during my checkride and expected to fail including the one short landing the DPE asked me to do.
After the flight he said I didn't do anything unsafe during the flight and I passed!! I was floored and very happy of course.

I was very cautious and nervous, maybe not scared when I first starting renting planes from my flight school after my checkride. Each flight I felt better and more confident. It was about 6-8 months later I started to fly a friends 172 as much as I wanted. I flew 5-7 days a week at first 99% of the time by myself cause I was nervous and really didn't want anyone with me while I was learning.
After a while I started to push my limits and flying into some grass fields. That was fun. I'd say I didn't work on short field landings until I had about 500 hours. After 6 months of flying my friends 172 I bought it from him and continued to fly 3-7 days a week to hone my skills.
It was nice to hear my wife comment how I was getting better at landing each time she flew with me which was like every couple months.
Just show the DPE you know what your supposed to do and I bet you pass. If I remember right I bounced my short field attempt on my checkride and passed.
Good luck to you.
 
Last edited:
StraightnLevel said:
No, 500 feet is not within standards. The ACS for PPL specifies a landing no more than 200 feet beyond the target point.


Touch down within 200 feet beyond the specified point, threshold markings or runway numbers, with no side drift, minimum float, and with the airplane’s longitudinal axis aligned with and over runway centerline
Click to expand...
No, that is not correct. Did you read the thread? You need to touch down within 200 feet of the intended touchdown point, not the aiming point. Do you understand there is a difference between the aiming point and the touchdown point?
 
The ACS is a test, therefore it has to have OBJECTIVE standards that can be evaluated and applied consistently.

Real world ADM... if I had to stick a landing within 200ft or crash I'm not gonna land there.

All this FAA BS about +/-5kts and 200ft is just so they can test you and that you can do it at least ONCE.
 
pfarber said:
The ACS is a test, therefore it has to have OBJECTIVE standards that can be evaluated and applied consistently.

Real world ADM... if I had to stick a landing within 200ft or crash I'm not gonna land there.

All this FAA BS about +/-5kts and 200ft is just so they can test you and that you can do it at least ONCE.
Click to expand...
Ignorance and incompetence are not the same as good judgment and decision making.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
"Minimum float" is not the same as "no float." You are doing fine. The rule of thumb is to touch down within the first third of the runway. If you float 500 feet past the threshold, that means you can land in the first third of a 1500' runway. You are well within standards.
Click to expand...
I get it. I'm not hung up on what "minimum float" means, although the FAA should define the term if they put the term forward. We as a community have had to define it for them.

I still don't know how to perform the maneuver. I'm in a 1980 C172P, so the most generic and basic GA aircraft. Any pilot out there should be able to easily state how to perform a short-field landing, yet this thread is 4 pages of confused and contradictory opinions. My belief is that that is a testament to how skewed the FAA is on this maneuver. They are taking a procedure out of the POH and hybridizing it with their own criteria. Pardon my bad attitude but it is very stupid and confusing.

In a no wind condition, what should I do and how should I set myself up? How do I progress through the maneuver, play by play, to touch down at my spot?

All I know is:

1. On final, at least 300 feet above runway, be fully configured with full flaps and at 61 knots.
2. At some point during the approach, transition to a roundout and flare and touch down at your spot.
3. After touching down, flaps up, elevator fully back, apply heavy braking.

What happens between steps 1 and 2 is mystery to everyone it seems. Should I use an aiming point? If so, how far prior to my touchdown point should my aiming point be? Should I hold my 61 knot approach speed until in ground effect, or should I start slowing down prior to entering ground effect and to what speed should I slow down to? When you do start slowing down, is that the beginning of the round out? What should I be doing with the power during this time?

Everyone has a different answer to these questions, which is understandable since everyone may be flying a different type of aircraft at different altitudes and on different density altitude days. However, at this point I am doubtful that even a small handful of people, maybe just 2-3, can come along and reach a consensus on a straightforward standard set of answers applicable to a C172 in a no wind condition.
 
Last edited:
FinalApproach said:
What happens between steps 1 and 2 is mystery to everyone it seems. Should I use an aiming point? If so, how far prior to my touchdown point should my aiming point be? Should I hold my 61 knot approach speed until in ground effect, or should I start slowing down prior to entering ground effect and to what speed should I slow down to? When you do start slowing down, is that the beginning of the round out? What should I be doing with the power during this time?
Click to expand...
How about
FinalApproach said:
For a short field landing in smooth air conditions, make an approach at 61 KIAS with 30° flaps using enough power to control the glide path. (Slightly higher approach speeds should be used under turbulent air conditions.) After all approach obstacles are cleared, progressively reduce power and maintain the approach speed by lowering the nose of the airplane. Touchdown should be made with power off and on the main wheels first. Immediately after touchdown, lower the nose wheel and apply heavy braking as required. For maximum brake effectiveness, retract the flaps, hold the control wheel full back, and apply maximum brake pressure without sliding the tires
Click to expand...
 
FinalApproach said:
I still don't know how to perform the maneuver.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you quite successfully performed it. Not seeing what the problem is.
FinalApproach said:
I can hit my touchdown point, but in order to do that I have to set my aiming point 500 feet before my touchdown point just like I do for a normal landing with a 65 knot approach speed. For the short-field, I approach at 61 and enter ground effect at 61 and progressively slow down and reduce power so as to touch down at the spot. There doesn't seem to be any science to it other than just feeling it out and jockeying the throttle and pitch as needed to make it work.
Click to expand...
 
dmspilot said:
Sounds like you quite successfully performed it. Not seeing what the problem is.
Click to expand...
I'm able to hit the touchdown point, but not consistently since I don't know what the hell I'm doing. Once I start getting down closer to the runway I just start juggling the throttle and pitch to make it work out. If I had to explain to someone what I'm doing, where I'm looking, how I'm setting myself up, I would have no explanation to give. There doesn't seem to be a procedure to follow other than to just shoot from the hip and "make it work".
 
MauleSkinner said:
I don’t see a conflict between them.
Click to expand...
Here's a couple conflicts:

1. POH tells you how to perform the maneuver so as to clear a 50 foot obstacle, but on the ACS you are not clearing a real or simulated 50 foot obstacle. There is no obstacle on the ACS at all.
2. ACS wants you to touch down at or within 200 feet of a specified point. The POH makes no mention of touching down at a specified point.

If I have an actual obstacle, then my aiming point will be on the runway just in front of the obstacle from my point of view in the plane. But for the ACS there is no obstacle, so then where should my aiming point be? Should I begin cutting power when 50 feet above the runway and on glidepath to my aiming point? Do I pull the power out to idle, or adjust it as needed to make sure I can float to my spot?
 
Last edited:
FinalApproach said:
I'm able to hit the touchdown point, but not consistently since I don't know what the hell I'm doing. Once I start getting down closer to the runway I just start juggling the throttle and pitch to make it work out. If I had to explain to someone what I'm doing, where I'm looking, how I'm setting myself up, I would have no explanation to give. There doesn't seem to be a procedure to follow other than to just shoot from the hip and "make it work".
Click to expand...
That's basically how you do it. Throttle and pitch to hit your touchdown point. There's not a "procedure". Main difference between that and a regular landing is a bit slower/steeper and hitting a specific target within 200 feet. You are way overcomplicating it. You have to demonstrate mastery of the aircraft. A formulaic approach is fine as a foundation, but you'll need to adjust for wind, payload etc. Hint - the POH is not the place to look.
 
Hang 4 said:
That's basically how you do it. Throttle and pitch to hit your touchdown point. There's not a "procedure". Main difference between that and a regular landing is a bit slower/steeper and hitting a specific target within 200 feet. You are way overcomplicating it. You have to demonstrate mastery of the aircraft. A formulaic approach is fine as a foundation, but you'll need to adjust for wind, payload etc. Hint - the POH is not the place to look.
Click to expand...
There has to be a procedure, at least for a no wind situation. I get having to adjust the procedure for varying condition, but nobody can even describe the procedure for calm wind day in a regular C172.
 
FinalApproach said:
Here's a couple conflicts:

1. POH tells you how to perform the maneuver so as to clear a 50 foot obstacle, the ACS makes no mention of a 50 foot obstacle.
2. ACS want you to touch down at or within 200 feet of a specified point. The POH makes no mention of touching down at a specified point.

If I have an actual obstacle, then my aiming point will be on the runway just in front of the obstacle from my point of view in the plane. But for the ACS there is no obstacle, so then where should my aiming point be?
Click to expand...
The "Aiming point" is a place where you aim so that you round out and touch down at the Target. Some people don't use an aiming point (me). You tell the DPE your target, he doesn't care what your aiming point is, just that you touch down on, or no more than 200 feet past your TARGET. What if you have a 5 knot head wind, 10 knot, 15 knot? What it there's a 45 degree cross wind? Each one of those will require adjusting your round out to hit the target. Stop thinking "procedure" and think "skill".
 
Hang 4 said:
The "Aiming point" is a place where you aim so that you round out and touch down at the Target. Some people don't use an aiming point (me). You tell the DPE your target, he doesn't care what your aiming point is, just that you touch down on, or no more than 200 feet past your TARGET. What if you have a 5 knot head wind, 10 knot, 15 knot? What it there's a 45 degree cross wind? Each one of those will require adjusting your round out to hit the target. Stop thinking "procedure" and think "skill".
Click to expand...
How do you do this without using an aiming point? What kind of aircraft are you in and can you describe it play by play?

Yes, I get not getting too fixated on a procedure. However, there should at least be a procedure for a calm wind day as a baseline. But everyone does it differently. You just said you don't use an aiming point yet most others in here state that you need an aiming point.
 
FinalApproach said:
There has to be a procedure, at least for a no wind situation. I get having to adjust the procedure for varying condition, but nobody can even describe the procedure for calm wind day in a regular C172.
Click to expand...
The procedure has been described, but apparently it isn't specific enough for you. The reality is that a short field landing isn't that different from a normal landing. Perhaps you have a poor understanding of normal landings? No one here is likely to help you without flying with you. If you don't trust your CFI, get a different one.
 
FinalApproach said:
Here's a couple conflicts:

1. POH tells you how to perform the maneuver so as to clear a 50 foot obstacle,
Click to expand...
Where does the technique specify a 50-ft obstacle?
FinalApproach said:
the ACS makes no mention of a 50 foot obstacle.
Click to expand...
The ACS says to consider, among other things, obstructions when selecting your aiming point. An obstruction is an obstacle.
FinalApproach said:
2. ACS want you to touch down at or within 200 feet of a specified point. The POH makes no mention of touching down at a specified point.
Click to expand...
So, as noted several pages ago, figure out where you touch down relative to your aiming point, and select your aiming point appropriately.
FinalApproach said:
If I have an actual obstacle, then my aiming point will be on the runway just in front of the obstacle from my point of view in the plane. But for the ACS there is no obstacle, so then where should my aiming point be?
Click to expand...
wherever it needs to be to touch down in the right place.
 
FinalApproach said:
Yes, I get not getting too fixated on a procedure. However, there should at least be a procedure for a calm wind day as a baseline. But everyone does it differently.
Click to expand...
Don’t confuse procedure with technique. The procedure is to fly the appropriate speed and touch down at the appropriate spot. There are varying techniques to get there, and the ACS provides necessary flexibility for different techniques and different airplanes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top