How do perform short field landings for practical test

Man o man.
I didn't read every post but I am not approaching At 300'
I am dragging the plane in just above stall speed at closer to 50 kkt indicated and a little slower than that. When I pull the power it lands pretty much immediately and only going 40 kts I can stop it pretty short. No float or any of that crap.
I fly the same plane as you are.
It takes practice to do that.
I suggest go take the checkride get off the internet.
I was not on any aviation website when I took my check ride in 2016. My instructor was the only person I listened too and he got me through just fine. Short field landing was not on mind when I took my ride. And like I said I didn't learn how to do a good one many hours later after I got my PPL
 
Last edited:
FinalApproach said:
Ok so how do you do your landings without using an aiming point?

If you were a CFI and were training a student, would you tell them to "just make it work" or would you describe to them some basic steps?
Click to expand...
I use a sight picture of the whole runway. How high, how far? Using eyes, not instruments. Check speed once or twice, but more focused on where the plane is relative to the target and where I expect to round out. It works for me, but certainly not the only way and you should do what your CFI is suggesting. What is he telling you regarding all this?

Note the bold from @MauleSkinner. If you ignore the obstacle part, there's your procedure. What everyone is trying to tell you is the procedure is not the technique. An example of a technique is riding a bicycle. Pedal and go straight. The technique can't be described, only learned. For short field there are aspects that can be described, but to do it successfully requires practicing the technique, not learning the procedure.

BTW not trying to argue with you and most others aren't either, just trying get you to understand the difference between a procedure and a technique. On this particular one, technique is the key. Procedure helps, but it's 20% of success, the other 80% is technique.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Or, just make your normal approach except use the short field speed.
Click to expand...
Why would I use the obstacle clearing technique if there is no obstacle on the ACS?

The short-field in the POH is denoted as a procedure by the way, not a technique.
 
The short field landing is an accuracy landing. It's not nearly 5 page thread worthy. I honestly do nothing different in the Cherokee than I normally do. Just a little more diligent on where the wheels touch

You tell the examiner you're going to land on a specified spot. Do not land before and within a maximum of 200' beyond that spot. Adjust your aiming point and do whatever it takes to make it happen. If you're floating when you practice, you're coming in too fast.
 
Hang 4 said:
I use a sight picture of the whole runway. How high, how far? Using eyes, not instruments. Check speed once or twice, but more focused on where the plane is relative to the target and where I expect to round out. It works for me, but certainly not the only way and you should do what your CFI is suggesting. What is he telling you regarding all this?

Note the bold from @MauleSkinner. If you ignore the obstacle part, there's your procedure. What everyone is trying to tell you is the procedure is not the technique. An example of a technique is riding a bicycle. Pedal and go straight. The technique can't be described, only learned. For short field there are aspects that can be described, but to do it successfully requires practicing the technique, not learning the procedure.

BTW not trying to argue with you and most others aren't either, just trying get you to understand the difference between a procedure and a technique. On this particular one, technique is the key. Procedure helps, but it's 20% of success, the other 80% is technique.
Click to expand...
I get the distinction between procedure and technique.

The ACS procedure only has 2 essential parts to it:

1. Follow the manufacturers approach speed and configuration (61 knots and full flaps)
2. Touch down at or within 200 feet of a specified point

How you accomplish the transition from step 1 to step 2 (technique) is up to you and can seemingly be done any which way. That's where my questions start. Should I use an aiming point? If so, how far prior to my touchdown point should my aiming point be? When do I begin the roundout? Do I carry 61 knots into the roundout or do I slow down first?

How are people doing this in a C172?

You say you don't use an aiming point at all, yet you mentioned rounding out. I don't understand how you are deciding when to round out but whatever.

My CFI has had me do these 4-5 different ways so far, the Embry-Riddle way, the POH procedure where you reduce power after a 50 foot obstacle (we landed WAYYY short of our touchdown point doing this procedure), a technique where we entered ground effect at 55 knots and with partial power in and then chopped power to touch down when we floated to the touchdown point, and basically a normal landing where we just shoot from the hip to "make it work" so that we touch down at our spot. My CFI is unfortunately unable to find the words to explain to me how to manage this so that we hit our touchdown point every time.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So your normal approach is an obstacle landing?
Click to expand...
No. When I asked for a good technique to accomplish the short field for the ACS, you referenced the obstacle clearinging technique in the POH.

I was asking why would I use that technique if there is not obstacle being simulated in the ACS.
 
FinalApproach said:
No. When I asked for a good technique to accomplish the short field for the ACS, you referenced the obstacle clearinging technique in the POH.

I was asking why would I use that technique if there is not obstacle being simulated in the ACS.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s assume for the moment something totally off the wall. Let’s assume that you’re starting your approach from more than, say, oh, I don’t know, just to come up with a totally off-the-wall number, 50 feet. You do your normal approach, with your normal aiming point, and just for the sake of argument, let’s say that you fly down the PAPI/VASI/whatever, but at the short field speed. You magically cross the end of the runway at 50 feet. Over the end of the runway, you progressively reduce power and maintain the approach speed by lowering the nose of the airplane. Amazingly, you touch down at exactly the same spot that you did the last 897 times you used exactly that same technique. Take that touchdown spot, and make the specified point 100 feet before it, and voila, you are suddenly flying a short field approach and landing smack in the middle of the ACS requirement.
 
FinalApproach said:
1. Follow the manufacturers approach speed and configuration (61 knots and full flaps)
2. Touch down at or within 200 feet of a specified point

How you accomplish the transition from step 1 to step 2 (technique) is up to you and can seemingly be done any which way.
Click to expand...
Correct.

FinalApproach said:
That's where my questions start. Should I use an aiming point? If so, how far prior to my touchdown point should my aiming point be? When do I begin the roundout? Do I carry 61 knots into the roundout or do I slow down first?

How are people doing this in a C172?
Click to expand...
Most of us aren't looking at the airspeed indicator during the roundout and flare, nor do we have radar altimeters. We are all different heights with different seating positions, which alters our perspectives. We're different weights which alters the plane's handling characteristics. These reasons are why you're not getting straight answers. Like any landing, it is done by feel, not by numbers. You also need to make adjustments for the conditions. I assume your goal is to be a pilot, not to program a computer to land a plane. Start with your normal landing, assuming you know how to do one, and make the appropriate changes to comply with the ACS.

FinalApproach said:
My CFI has had me do these 4-5 different ways so far, the Embry-Riddle way, the POH procedure where you reduce power after a 50 foot obstacle (we landed WAYYY short of our touchdown point doing this procedure), a technique where we entered ground effect at 55 knots and with partial power in and then chopped power to touch down when we floated to the touchdown point, and basically a normal landing where we just shoot from the hip to "make it work" so that we touch down at our spot. My CFI is unfortunately unable to find the words to explain to me how to manage this so that we hit our touchdown point every time.
Click to expand...
If your CFI can't teach then why are you paying him or her and at the same time expecting to obtain higher quality advice for free? Demonstrating 4-5 techniques isn't teaching, it's throwing stuff at wall to see what sticks, and will likely only confuse the student, as can be seen in your posts. I'm afraid you might be a victim of the post-pandemic nosedive in the overall quality of flight instruction. We can't fix that by typing words on a page.
 
FinalApproach said:
I get the distinction between procedure and technique.

The ACS procedure only has 2 essential parts to it:

1. Follow the manufacturers approach speed and configuration (61 knots and full flaps)
2. Touch down at or within 200 feet of a specified point

How you accomplish the transition from step 1 to step 2 (technique) is up to you and can seemingly be done any which way. That's where my questions start. …. .
Click to expand...
Carr before the horse. If you’re trimmed for your approach speed and “jockeying” the throttle, that means you are need power for altitude, which means you’re too low.

I’m dead serious. Go do power of landings from abeam the numbers, because you’re too low on final too far out.

And forget the imaginary obstacle; it’s a distraction.
 
This thread has been going for 2 weeks. In that amount of time, you could have made a couple of hundred landings and figured this out. Get away from the keyboard and go fly!

Much of what we do in the final phase of a landing, any landing, is done by feel, just like skating or skiing. There are simply too many variables for a textbook method to work. You have to learn to sense what the plane is doing by sight and feel and adjust to it. The only way to do that is to plant your butt into the pilot's seat and practice.
 
dmspilot said:
Correct.


Most of us aren't looking at the airspeed indicator during the roundout and flare, nor do we have radar altimeters. We are all different heights with different seating positions, which alters our perspectives. We're different weights which alters the plane's handling characteristics. These reasons are why you're not getting straight answers. Like any landing, it is done by feel, not by numbers. You also need to make adjustments for the conditions. I assume your goal is to be a pilot, not to program a computer to land a plane. Start with your normal landing, assuming you know how to do one, and make the appropriate changes to comply with the ACS.


If your CFI can't teach then why are you paying him or her and at the same time expecting to obtain higher quality advice for free? Demonstrating 4-5 techniques isn't teaching, it's throwing stuff at wall to see what sticks, and will likely only confuse the student, as can be seen in your posts. I'm afraid you might be a victim of the post-pandemic nosedive in the overall quality of flight instruction. We can't fix that by typing words on a page.
Click to expand...
There is a wealth of information being shared freely on here which is why I'm asking. He showed me these different techniques because I kept asking him about it and we tried it different ways to find a way that works for me but none of the techniques stands out as the clear winner. He is essentially saying the same stuff as everyone on here such as to manage the energy on short final so as to arrive at the touchdown point, but he can't really find the words to be more specific than that. We talked about this with one of the other instructors who said to just keep it like a normal landing except to move the aiming point up 100 feet to account for the reduced airspeed on final. When I asked about "minimal float" they both just kind of said that that's there to prohibit students from doing slow flight all the way down the runway to get to their touchdown point.

Going forward I'm just going to keep it as close to a normal landing as I can. I'll pick an aiming point 400 feet before my touchdown point to account for the reduced approach speed and I'll maintain 61 knots until I'm in ground effect. At that point I'll pull the power and float 400 feet to my touchdown point. If I think I'm coming up short I'll add a little power back in to extend the float. If I'm long I'll put full power back in and go around and try it again.

All the confusion started because I noticed the difference between the Embry-Riddle technique and the procedure in the POH. Everyone seems to understand it and teach it differently and when asked I feel a lot of people provide incomplete or contradictory explanations. Several people in this thread alone are claiming they don't use an aiming point at all for example. MauleSkinner is telling me to use the obstacle clearing procedure even though there is no obstacle being simulated. There is understandably a lot of room for confusion which is why I'm asking for a very basic technique applicable to a C172 on a calm wind day. I understand you need to then account for a variety of variables but just getting a good baseline technique to start from would be nice.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
Going to idle while pitching up as the obstacle is cleared is a good way to slam the airplane into the ground
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. But you’re talking to a guy who blew a main wheel on his PPL checkride (and passed - true story).
 
FinalApproach said:

MauleSkinner​


Going forward I'm just going to keep it as close to a normal landing as I can. I'll pick an aiming point 400 feet before my touchdown point to account for the reduced approach speed and I'll maintain 61 knots until I'm in ground effect. At that point I'll pull the power and float 400 feet to my touchdown point. If I think I'm coming up short I'll add a little power back in to extend the float. If I'm long I'll put full power back in and go around and try it again.

All the confusion started because I noticed the difference between the Embry-Riddle technique and the procedure in the POH. Everyone seems to understand it and teach it differently and when asked I feel a lot of people provide incomplete or contradictory explanations. Several people in this thread alone are claiming they don't use an aiming point at all for example. MauleSkinner is telling me to use the obstacle clearing procedure even though there is no obstacle being simulated. There is understandably a lot of room for confusion which is why I'm asking for a very basic technique applicable to a C172 on a calm wind day. I understand you need to then account for a variety of variable but just getting a good baseline technique to start from would be nice.
Click to expand...
Hence post #3. :biggrin:
 
FinalApproach said:
We talked about this with one of the other instructors who said to just keep it like a normal landing except to move the aiming point up 100 feet to account for the reduced airspeed on final. When I asked about "minimal float" they both just kind of said that that's there to prohibit students from doing slow flight all the way down the runway to get to their touchdown point.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. To me it’s really easy. The ACS says nothing about any obstacles, so I’d ignore that entirely. Your POH says 40 degrees of flaps at 59 knots and reduce power to idle after clearing the obstacle (as mentioned in the POH, not the ACS), so presumably they mean reduce power to idle at 50 feet AGL. I’d do that.

To me a short field landing is simply a minimum energy stable approach. Nothing more, nothing less. I think one of the big things which seemingly nobody has mentioned is, if you ain’t feeling it, go around.

Go out and try it at 60 knots and 40 degrees of flaps and chop the power at 30 feet or so and see what happens. Per the ACS you have to be on the ground within 200 feet of your selected touchdown point. I’d more or less aim right at it. At low speed and going to idle at 30-50 you will be fine.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Well, let’s assume for the moment something totally off the wall. Let’s assume that you’re starting your approach from more than, say, oh, I don’t know, just to come up with a totally off-the-wall number, 50 feet. You do your normal approach, with your normal aiming point, and just for the sake of argument, let’s say that you fly down the PAPI/VASI/whatever, but at the short field speed. You magically cross the end of the runway at 50 feet. Over the end of the runway, you progressively reduce power and maintain the approach speed by lowering the nose of the airplane. Amazingly, you touch down at exactly the same spot that you did the last 897 times you used exactly that same technique. Take that touchdown spot, and make the specified point 100 feet before it, and voila, you are suddenly flying a short field approach and landing smack in the middle of the ACS requirement.
Click to expand...
And if the examiner specifies the point for me, say the runway numbers or a certain taxiway intersection, then my technique no longer works because I am only used to doing it by pulling the power when I'm crossing the beginning of the runway. So how do I account for the fact that the specified point has moved?
 
FinalApproach said:
And if the examiner specifies the point for me, say the runway numbers or a certain taxiway intersection, then my technique no longer works because I am only used to doing it by pulling the power when I'm crossing the beginning of the runway. So how do I account for the fact that the specified point has moved?
Click to expand...
Move your aiming point, and pull the power at the same 50 feet.
 
I practiced at this field a hundred times early on. My aiming point was the white cones at the start of the runway.
I got comfortable enough I could take pictures. It says 47 true air speed and I am less than 100' past the cones in the flair ready to touch down. For me the only way I learned it is just practice.
No way I learn to do from the internet.
I do look down while in the flair and my plane lands at 38 knots which stall speed. All my landings are short field landings. Love stiff head wind landing. Just go slow and you can hit your target and land in under 200' even in grass.

IMG_1853.jpeg
 
mryan75 said:
Hmmm. To me it’s really easy. The ACS says nothing about any obstacles, so I’d ignore that entirely. Your POH says 40 degrees of flaps at 59 knots and reduce power to idle after clearing the obstacle, so presumably they mean reduce to idle at 50 feet AGL. I’d do that.

To me a short field landing is simply a minimum energy stable approach. Nothing more, nothing less. I think one of the big things which seemingly nobody has mentioned is, if you ain’t feeling it, go around.

Go out and try it at 60 knots and 40 degrees of flaps and chop the power at 30 feet or so and see what happens. Per the ACS you have to be on the ground within 200 feet of your selected touchdown point. I’d more or less aim right at it. At low speed and going to idle at 30-50 you will be fine.
Click to expand...
You're saying aim right at the touchdown point? So the aiming point and touchdown point are the SAME point?

And just chop the power when 30 feet above the aiming/touchdown point and you'll touch down at the touchdown point?

Ok, well I have tried that and at 60 knots approach speed I will absolutely float passed the touchdown point. I am not trying to argue but that is what happened 2 or 3 times in a row. Your technique may work in a Mooney but not in a C172.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Move your aiming point, and pull the power at the same 50 feet.
Click to expand...
Ok. So there are two techniques now:

1. Keep it like a normal landing except that approach speed should be reduced. Maintain 61 knots approach speed to an aiming point 400 feet before the touchdown point. When about 20 feet above the runway and on glide path to the aiming point, pull the power all the way out and float to your touchdown point in ground effect.
2. When on glide path to your aiming point and 50 feet above the runway, start pulling power back and lower pitch to maintain the 61 knots approach speed. Enter into ground effect with the power already reduced and at 61 knots and float to a touchdown point. Learn how far the plane travels to touchdown from the moment you begin pulling power and adjust your aiming point accordingly so as to consistenly arrive at a desired touchdown point.

Do I have that correct? And either technique can be used? Just pick the one that you like better as either one is acceptable?
 
FinalApproach said:
Ok. So there are two techniques now:

1. Keep it like a normal landing except that approach speed should be reduced. Maintain 61 knots approach speed to an aiming point 400 feet before the touchdown point. When about 20 feet above the runway and on glide path to the aiming point, pull the power all the way out and float to your touchdown point in ground effect.
2. When on glide path to your aiming point and 50 feet above the runway, start pulling power back and lower pitch to maintain the 61 knots approach speed. Enter into ground effect with the power already reduced and at 61 knots and float to a touchdown point. Learn how far the plane travels to touchdown from the moment you begin pulling power and adjust your aiming point accordingly so as to consistenly arrive at a desired touchdown point.

Do I have that correct? And either technique can be used? Just pick the one that you like better as either one is acceptable?
Click to expand...
There are several more techniques here, but either of these should work. I would recommend the one that’s closer to your normal technique.

Just note that, contrary to several people’s statements here, the ACS DOES reference the possibility of obstacles. If you’re not 100% sure your examiner won’t take you to a strip with trees or something off the end, I’d use a technique that could work either with or without obstacles.
 
Last edited:
FinalApproach said:
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.
Click to expand...
We tend to overemphasize stable approaches. I tell people you will recognize an unstable approach when you see it. You probably don't even need to be a pilot to recognize it. As long as you "smoothly" reduce the power and transition to 55 kt this is fine. The only, and good, reason not to approach at 55kts to begin with is to give you more protection from wind shear and turbulence on the approach.
FinalApproach said:
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?
Click to expand...
I tell my student 1500 should be the maximum RPM to start with, for short field it probably shouldn't normally be idle either just give you some room to adjust either up or down as needed.
FinalApproach said:
1. On final, full flaps and pitch for 65 knots approach speed.
2. Pitch to maintain 65 knots and adjust power to maintain a glide path down to an aiming point.
3. Hold this aiming point at a fixed spot on your windshield.
4. When about 20 feet above the runway (in ground effect) and on glide path to your aiming point, reduce power to idle and pitch the nose up to a level attitude to roundout.
5. While floating down the runway in ground effect, progressively pitch to nose up more so as to hold the plane off the runway (the flare).
6. You should eventually touch down in a nose high attitude, near stalling speed, with the power fully out.

I normally float about 500 feet before I touch down, so if I wanted to touch down at the 1000 foot markers I would set my aiming point at the 500 foot markers.

What is the procedure for a short-field?
Click to expand...
As I posted earlier if you are doing full flap approaches your normal approach is very close to a short field approach. differences are

. #1 You said 55 worked well at short final, when the airplane is light, plan on the 61 in the book if near gross. As I mentioned above I recommend transitioning to the slowest approach speed on short to very short final just do it "smoothly". Most pilots are flying attitude at this point instead of the Airspeed indicator anyway i.e. not looking at the Airspeed indicator any once below 100 to 50 feet and the begin the round out.

You didn't say what you use for power on a normal approach, I usually teach <1500RPM and 1/2 flaps, at full flaps you might be using more power for a normal approach. This is about the same angle and distance approach as the guys using full flaps and more power, but is less risky if wind shear, turbulence is encountered, or a go around is required. Also easier to raise the nose for flare. Also getting the nose up higher for the touchdown often results in an equal or slower touchdown speed and as short or shorter than the guy doing full flap landings but not getting the nose up (Yoke all the way back) before touch down. Short field of course is going to be full flaps, <1500RPM

#5 if you slow enough (nose pitched high enough) when you get to your spot you won't float much or any. It likely won't be a soft field landing as you sort of drop onto the runway.

******************
funny story, only because I didn't damage anything.

When I did my 182 checkout I came in really high on one of my approaches. Full flaps, power off didn't look like it was going to get me down, My CFI told me to slow down until the Stall warning squeaked and hold that airspeed. OF course there was a short pull up as slowed down, but then the decent angle really increased as I had a very low forward speed and a high descent rate. This works even better with a bit of a headwind. At about 200 feet he told me push the nose down, I looked him like why, and then did what he said. I obvious pulled up as we were then diving at the ground. I pulled back flared and did the nicest landing I did all day. Unfortunately I wasn't smart enough to ask more about that procedure.

So a couple days later while solo in the 152 is was thinking that was kind a cool procedure but didn't really understand the dive at the end of the approach. So I tried the same approach with the 152 but didn't lower the nose. At about 20 feet I realized I was coming down really fast and rotated/flared all the way back on the yoke. The plane barely slowed it's descent as we impacted the ground. It was one of maybe only 3 landings I have ever done where after rolling out I am looking around to make sure the wings and tail are still attached to the airplane. The lesson I learned that you need some energy to stop the descent (Airspeed (diving) or power)



Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
brcase said:
We tend to overemphasize stable approaches. I tell people you will recognize an unstable approach when you see it. You probably don't even need to be a pilot to recognize it. As long as you "smoothly" reduce the power and transition to 55 kt this is fine. The only, and good, reason not to approach at 55kts to begin with is to give you more protection from wind shear and turbulence on the approach.

I tell my student 1500 should be the maximum RPM to start with, for short field it probably shouldn't normally be idle either just give you some room to adjust either up or down as needed.

As I posted earlier if you are doing full flap approaches your normal approach is very close to a short field approach. differences are

. #1 You said 55 worked well at short final, when the airplane is light, plan on the 61 in the book if near gross. As I mentioned above I recommend transitioning to the slowest approach speed on short to very short final just do it "smoothly". Most pilots are flying attitude at this point instead of the Airspeed indicator anyway i.e. not looking at the Airspeed indicator any once below 100 to 50 feet and the begin the round out.

You didn't say what you use for power on a normal approach, I usually teach <1500RPM and 1/2 flaps, at full flaps you might be using more power for a normal approach. This is about the same angle and distance approach as the guys using full flaps and more power, but is less risky if wind shear, turbulence is encountered, or a go around is required. Also easier to raise the nose for flare. Also getting the nose up higher for the touchdown often results in an equal or slower touchdown speed and as short or shorter than the guy doing full flap landings but not getting the nose up (Yoke all the way back) before touch down. Short field of course is going to be full flaps, <1500RPM

#5 if you slow enough (nose pitched high enough) when you get to your spot you won't float much or any. It likely won't be a soft field landing as you sort of drop onto the runway.

******************
funny story, only because I didn't damage anything.

When I did my 182 checkout I came in really high on one of my approaches. Full flaps, power off didn't look like it was going to get me down, My CFI told me to slow down until the Stall warning squeaked and hold that airspeed. OF course there was a short pull up as slowed down, but then the decent angle really increased as I had a very low forward speed and a high descent rate. This works even better with a bit of a headwind. At about 200 feet he told me push the nose down, I looked him like why, and then did what he said. I obvious pulled up as we were then diving at the ground. I pulled back flared and did the nicest landing I did all day. Unfortunately I wasn't smart enough to ask more about that procedure.

So a couple days later while solo in the 152 is was thinking that was kind a cool procedure but didn't really understand the dive at the end of the approach. So I tried the same approach with the 152 but didn't lower the nose. At about 20 feet I realized I was coming down really fast and rotated/flared all the way back on the yoke. The plane barely slowed it's descent as we impacted the ground. It was one of maybe only 3 landings I have ever done where after rolling out I am looking around to make sure the wings and tail are still attached to the airplane. The lesson I learned that you need some energy to stop the descent (Airspeed (diving) or power)



Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...
Thank you for breaking it down like that. Very helpful. I'll aim to keep the RPM at 1500 max. I did notice on the last few landings that when I had the power set at beyond 1500 on final to maintain glide path, we floated passed the touchdown point and I suspect that's because high power settings flatten out your glide path. With the power closer to idle, and at the same airspeed, the plane sinks much faster and our floating distance is much less, likely due to the steeper glide path. So I guess approach speed and power setting when entering the flare both influence the floating distance and not just speed alone as I previously thought. So I'll try to keep the power at 1200-1300 going forward when on final. I think I'll stick with carrying 60 knots approach speed into the flare for now and learn the plane at that speed first. I'll change variables one at a time. I think right now it is problematic that I have been changing multiple variables at once just trying to learn an ideal technique. I didn't even have the technique vs procedure concept down until today.
 
It sounds to me like you're finally on a good path. Congrats! Now my advice, not as a CFI, but as someone that took a while to learn to land is to do this: takeoff, land, takeoff, land, etc., until you've got this down. Overthinking is not your friend in landing. Repetition is.
 
Albany Tom said:
It sounds to me like you're finally on a good path. Congrats! Now my advice, not as a CFI, but as someone that took a while to learn to land is to do this: takeoff, land, takeoff, land, etc., until you've got this down. Overthinking is not your friend in landing. Repetition is.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I'd like to think that this thread can set others on the right track as well, not just me.

It helped a lot to understand that in the final moments, when it's time to round out/flare and touchdown, this is equal parts a "feel" thing as it is a procedure/technique thing. My understanding is that the "feel" is tantamount to your skill, which is a part of what you're being tested on. That understanding is what is allowing me to move forward, along with the basic techniques presented.
 
RyanB said:
View attachment 131464
Again, I disagree. This is the profile I’m describing.

There ain’t no way I’m going to touch down at the aiming point location if I plan to reuse the airplane.

Hogwash.

In a low wing maybe under perfect conditions, but a 172 is going to have some float.
Click to expand...
A man has to know his limitations, but you basically just told us you don’t understand tbe aerodynamics involved in short field landings.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
Ignorance and incompetence are not the same as good judgment and decision making.
Click to expand...
I know I couldn't, 100% of the time, hit a <=200ft spot IF the consequence was damage and injury. And I don't rent/fly the 172 I fly enough to remain THAT proficient.

So yeah, I'm on the good judgement side of knowing the test requirement is a joke and I will not take the risk.

Oh noes, some jabrony on the interwebz thinks I'm a bad pilut... how will I ever survive:rolleyes:

Like the power off 180 and chandelle, the 200 ft landing thing is a test requirment, not real life.
 
FinalApproach said:
Care to explain?
Click to expand...
If you understand ground effect, the closer the wing to the surface, the less induced drag the aircraft has. If you fly the plane correctly, the high wing vs the low wing is less prone to float not more prone to float.

Float during a landing is a product of excessive energy. The energy can be airspeed, altitude or both.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
Power off 180 is very much real life. Ask me how I know.
Click to expand...
A power off 180 in the test the engine is fully functional, you are never in real danger aka can go around.

I do wish all my engine failures would occur when I am in the pattern, at mid field.

Also power off 180 is NOT the 'impossible turn'.

Most of the performance maneuvers in the commercial test are a joke.... but the FAA has to have SOMETHING to test you on. The short field portion of having to hit a 200ft section is also laughable. My ADM tells me if I have to be that specific then I've made a huge mistake and should find a better spot. Yes, I understand than an emergency situation can arise at any time and that alone does not make the ACS requirement valid.
 
MauleSkinner said:
And not being able to touch down where you want to is the primary method that airplanes are destroyed in my corner of aviation.
Click to expand...
Bad decisions are a bigger part of accidents than you will admit. Remember the holes in the swiss cheese only line up because poor decisions made them. I'll tell you now that if the runway is obstructed, or length is an issue, I am NOT going to depend on my accuracy... to many things can go wrong.. a gust, a thermal, an animal, another aircraft etc etc etc.

Of course the interwebsis full of Bob Hoover wannabe's.... I'm not one of them.

Can I land within the 200ft like the FAA says? Sure... I've done it a few times and even had a DPE there to show them in person. But real life I'm a first third of the runway kinda guy (after I determine landing performance)
 
StraightnLevel said:
...but the point of doing it is to force you to learn the energy relationship so that you become more consistent and controlled in your approach and landing.
Click to expand...

The point of doing it is to learn to land on short fields.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top