Imagine passing PPL short field landing on the spot you picked. And failing CPL short field on the spot you picked.

Racerx said:
This is what came to mind immediately when they said 50' obstacle. Uhhhh that's not part of the ACS for short field...
Click to expand...

Add the applicant would have to know the distance of the obstacle from the specified point in advance of the test to determine the aircraft could land within 100 feet of the specified point. Every obstacle or “simulation” would be an unknown quantity presented during the test.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
The task isn’t a short landing over a 50 ft obstacle within -0/+100 of the specified point - simulated or actual.
The task is a short field landing.

An examiner who requires a real or simulated 50 ft obstacle that would cause the applicant to change the procedure by flying a higher approach or airspeeds that are different from a short field would be introducing a new procedure into a standardized test. Having an obstacle at a distance that would not alter the procedure as a realistic distraction seems fair game.
Click to expand...
The task is a short field landing, and references the FAA-H-8083-3, where obstacles are a considerable part of the description of the procedure. There is no "introducing a new procedure."
 
MauleSkinner said:
There are a lot of things that we simulate that can lead to similar problems…one that comes to mind is teaching circle-to-land on a clear day and then flying one for real with with minimum ceiling and visibility.
Click to expand...
That’s the main reason I don’t understand why the FAA doesnt Like circling in a training device. Heck, it’s more realistic in a decent BATD than the typical CAVU conditions we train it in.
 
dmspilot said:
The task is a short field landing, and references the FAA-H-8083-3, where obstacles are a considerable part of the description of the procedure. There is no "introducing a new procedure."
Click to expand...
The ACS requires that obstacles are taken into account during pretty much all phases of flight as part of risk management. I imagine you'd bust your checkride if you hit something on any approach. So if there is an obstacle there, you better darn well account for it whether it's a short field or not.

It doesn't allow for the DPE to make up a simulated obstacle as part of the procedure (I'm not 100% positive this is what you're saying, but that's what it sounds like to me). The inclusion/discussion of obstacles in the AFH for the short field approach are literally about the shortening of usable runway when you make a stabilized approach over an obstacle. You might have a 3000' runway with a tree line right at the end that creates a short field or you might just have a short runway, both of which require the short field technique. The demonstrated procedure should be the same and doesn't require the obstacle.


shortfield.png
 
Clip4 said:
Add the applicant would have to know the distance of the obstacle from the specified point in advance of the test to determine the aircraft could land within 100 feet of the specified point. Every obstacle or “simulation” would be an unknown quantity presented during the test.
Click to expand...
If you had trained or done short field landings over an obstacle, you would know that isn’t true.
 
dmspilot said:
The task is a short field landing, and references the FAA-H-8083-3, where obstacles are a considerable part of the description of the procedure. There is no "introducing a new procedure."
Click to expand...

I suppose, but a short field landing can be flown with 2.5° descent angle. Depending on the distance and height of an obstacle, the descent angle to the aiming point could be 3x that value. It at least requires a change in technique and some additional ADM.
 
Clip4 said:
I suppose, but a short field landing can be flown with 2.5° descent angle. Depending on the distance and height of an obstacle, the descent angle to the aiming point could be 3x that value. It at least requires a change in technique and some additional ADM.
Click to expand...
A 6-degree approach angle would give an aiming point at the 1000-ft mark from the top of a 100-ft obstacle. With a 60-knot approach speed, that’s 600 ft/min. Easily done with a modicum of practice.

Bump the speed up to 100 knots, simply move the aiming point a few hundred feet further downfield.

It’s a minor modification of normal landing technique.

And just to put some real-world perspective on it, a VFR-only public airport should still have a 40:1 protected approach path, which puts obstacles at less than 1.5 degrees.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
I suppose, but a short field landing can be flown with 2.5° descent angle.
Click to expand...
And you would do that why?
Clip4 said:
Depending on the distance and height of an obstacle, the descent angle to the aiming point could be 3x that value. It at least requires a change in technique and some additional ADM.
Click to expand...
If you teach it with an obstacle, then no technique has to be changed when there isn't an obstacle.
 
I always thought short field implied an obstacle. If there wasn’t an obstacle, the field would probably be longer.
 
dmspilot said:
And you would do that why?

If you teach it with an obstacle, then no technique has to be changed when there isn't an obstacle.
Click to expand...
I used to fly with a guy who freaked himself out the first time he landed a Hawker on a 5000-ft runway. Turned a 3-mile final, fully configured, at less than 350 ft above the runway, flew all the way down final at Vref, put the wheels between the REILs, and touched down more than 2000 feet downfield.

Which I thought was rather strange, since he was comfortable crossing the end of the runway at 50 feet on GS or PAPIs at our home airport, which was 5300 feet long, and touching down by the 1000-ft markers.
 
dmspilot said:
And you would do that why?

If you teach it with an obstacle, then no technique has to be changed when there isn't an obstacle.
Click to expand...

If that is your point, you should teach it both ways because the landing distances over an obstacle are condiderably longer.
 
Salty said:
I always thought short field implied an obstacle. If there wasn’t an obstacle, the field would probably be longer.
Click to expand...

What would you consider a sand or gravel bar along a river. It can be a "short field" but no obstacles. It could be a soft short field with no obstacles such as an island in the Gulf of Mexico that has a small stretch of compacted sand.
 
At least you didn't rear-end an innocent Cessna
 
Salty said:
I always thought short field implied an obstacle. If there wasn’t an obstacle, the field would probably be longer.
Click to expand...
I was based for a while at an airport with an 1800' runway. You might not consider that short but I'm sure others would. I don't recall those trees about 100' from the runway 1 threshold being an issue to a normal 3° glideslope landing. Runway length was, at least in part, about what else was around it rather than there being 50' trees right up against it.

1734276730249.png
 
RussR said:
Used to be that way, but in 2018 the 2-a-day limit was increased to 3, with retests no longer counting against that. This was changed simultaneously with the removal of the geographic restrictions on DPEs.

Ref: FAA Notice 8900.485, which was canceled when the new rules were added to Order 8000.95C.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I missed that... I knew the geographic limit had been removed.
 
When I bought my first airplane, a 1957 Cessna 172, it was based on a 1200-foot grass strip with tall trees on one end and a house on the other. No problem getting in and out of there.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I was based for a while at an airport with an 1800' runway. You might not consider that short but I'm sure others would. I don't recall those trees about 100' from the runway 1 threshold being an issue to a normal 3° glideslope landing. Runway length was, at least in part, about what else was around it rather than there being 50' trees right up against it.

View attachment 136214
Click to expand...
The reality is that the 50 foot number has been corrupted to assume that’s the obstacle. It’s simply a certification number. If an obstacle exists at the end of the pavement, the threshold will be adjusted appropriately to allow a normal approach path.

No one is expected to spin their wheels up by brushing a 50’ tree at the end of the runway.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If an obstacle exists at the end of the pavement, the threshold will be adjusted appropriately to allow a normal approach path.

No one is expected to spin their wheels up by brushing a 50’ tree at the end of the runway.
Click to expand...
You were saying something about adjusting a threshold? :D
The reality is that not every runway is up to spec, although I can say the takeoff over those trees is much more interesting than the landing.

1734284572198.png
 
Salty said:
I always thought short field implied an obstacle. If there wasn’t an obstacle, the field would probably be longer.
Click to expand...
I wish I could take you to a couple landing areas I used to go to in Alaska where the builders, non-pilots, built the landing area with the thought that 450-500 feet was plenty long.

And one of them had a 40 degree bend in the middle, trees and a mountain on one end and a glacier lake on the other end. One way in, opposite way out... :lol: That was one of my favorite landing areas.
 
MauleSkinner said:
A 6-degree approach angle would give an aiming point at the 1000-ft mark from the top of a 100-ft obstacle. With a 60-knot approach speed, that’s 600 ft/min. Easily done with a modicum of practice.

Bump the speed up to 100 knots, simply move the aiming point a few hundred feet further downfield.

It’s a minor modification of normal landing technique.

And just to put some real-world perspective on it, a VFR-only public airport should still have a 40:1 protected approach path, which puts obstacles at less than 1.5 degrees.
Click to expand...


Sure, the examiner will just let you move the aim point down field and change to touch down zone.
 
MauleSkinner said:
you’re saying an examiner would force an unreasonable touchdown point?
Click to expand...

Yes. And this is more problematic when an examiner simulates an obstacle due to communication errors on what the examiner says and what the applicator thinks he understands.
 
Clip4 said:
Yes. And this is more problematic when an examiner simulates an obstacle due to communication errors on what the examiner says and what the applicator thinks he understands.
Click to expand...
So an examiner asking an applicant to cross the end of the runway on the VASI and touchdown at or within 200 feet beyond the beginning of the 1000-ft markers would be a problem in your opinion?
 
Last edited:
The whole time reading through this thread I'm thinking to myself that the OP took the time to find this site, create a new profile with a user name specific to the upcoming post, wrote that really long, almost unintelligible rant, clearly didn't proofread it, then post it, and think he was going to be right? Or get support from this community?! This doesn't even account for any cool down time from the end of the check (filling out paperwork, walking to the car, driving home, grabbing a beer, etc.) before all that. I've lost count of how many times I've typed out an email or a post that would be a bit of a rant and upon proofreading decided it's just not worth it...later to be glad I reconsidered because I was probably wrong to begin with.

If OP doesn't change their attitude REAL FAST, we'll be discussing their fatal mishap on these same pages in a year or two. Kinda like that CFI who went down with his student in a hasty night cross country through popup thunderstorms last year.

You wanna be commercial, OP? I got news for you...I wouldn't hire you to clean my BOATS with that attitude much less drive one.
 
MauleSkinner said:
A 6-degree approach angle would give an aiming point at the 1000-ft mark from the top of a 100-ft obstacle. With a 60-knot approach speed, that’s 600 ft/min. Easily done with a modicum of practice.

Bump the speed up to 100 knots, simply move the aiming point a few hundred feet further downfield.

It’s a minor modification of normal landing technique.
Click to expand...
Or slip it once you clear the obstacle - many short fields don't have the luxury of moving the aiming point down the runway.

And in real life, often a short field is soft and has obstacles. So it's approach, slip, round out, and add a tad bit of power to cushion the touchdown.

What is short varies, but > 1800' should be a non-issue for a pilot in any garden variety spam can.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So an examiner asking an applicant to cross the end of the runway on the VASI and touchdown at or within 200 feet beyond the beginning of the 1000-ft markers would be a problem in your opinion?
Click to expand...

I guess not at all if an examiner wants to allow 200 ft on a commercial test.
 
Steamflyer said:
Or slip it once you clear the obstacle - many short fields don't have the luxury of moving the aiming point down the runway.

And in real life, often a short field is soft and has obstacles. So it's approach, slip, round out, and add a tad bit of power to cushion the touchdown.

What is short varies, but > 1800' should be a non-issue for a pilot in any garden variety spam can.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, we're talking about checkride standards and manufacturer's procedures here. It's a procedure to build on, but one that CAN be built on rather than having to come up with a new, untrained procedure.
I guess our versions of real life short fields are different as well...Mine were all grass and dirt, not soft fields.
 
Steamflyer said:
What is short varies, but > 1800' should be a non-issue for a pilot in any garden variety spam can.
Click to expand...
“Should.” But there are many pilots who have not seen anything shorter than 3000’. There are clubs and schools with runway length limitations like that because they are making rules for the lowest common denominator.

It’s one of the reasons that in checkouts and IPCs, I take advantage of a taxi turnoff 1300’ from the threshold of our 6000’ runway to add a little more reality to the short field landing. The goal is to do it without slipping and without excessive braking.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It’s one of the reasons that in checkouts and IPCs, I take advantage of a taxi turnoff 1300’ from the threshold of our 6000’ runway to add a little more reality to the short field landing. The goal is to do it without slipping and without excessive braking.
Click to expand...
Why without slipping? It's an important part of the armamentarium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top