How do perform short field landings for practical test

MauleSkinner said:
We’ll, there ya go. If you’re going to do something different than the ASM you’re gonna get a different result. If you teach That technique primacy kicks in, and by the time they get to me pilots will continue busting check rides and Destroying airplanes in landing overruns.
Click to expand...
Not if they actually understand the technique.
 
RyanB said:
I’ve used the technique for every check ride I’ve taken that required an accuracy landing and passed on the first attempt. Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Yeah but we also disagree on what constitutes an accuracy landing.
 
midlifeflyer said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.

And I disagree that the AFH is different from the manufacture procedure.
 
Last edited:
do you want to be able to use the plane again? Whether you do or don’t, those are totally different techniques. I kid….
 
midlifeflyer said:
There are many of these. There are even older manuals which have next to nothing. Just try to find an emergency procedure in a 1965 Mooney M20C manual. Does that mean you just die when the DPE pulls the power on you? Or get to say, "well the manual doesn't contain a procedure so you can't test me on it!"?

In the case of the short field tasks, if you want something more modern, there's no short field checklist in the checklists for the Diamond DA40, not even the latest revision of the Jet A diesel FA40NG. As @MauleSkinner said, the answer is in the performance tables. In the case of other tasks with no POH reference, it's the reason for those References at the beginning of each task (including the Airplane Flying Handbook). When you don't have a POH way, you use the AFH way.

But you have me curious - the oldest Cherokee manuals I've seen (1964 Cherokee 140 revised in 1973) do talk about short field landing procedures (it's actually the same in their newer models). What do you have?
Click to expand...
This is what it gives us - Pg 124
1721247548313.png
Note that there are no target speeds, no flare height, and no described difference between short and soft landings (which are decidedly different).

This is what it gives us for takeoff - again, no targets speeds nor difference between short and soft-field T/Os.

1721247470551.png

 
RyanB said:
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
Click to expand...
1721233756778.png
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. I'm going to call that point the touchdown point. I don't see in this graphic that the airplane is ever at any time approaching the runway towards a point other than the touchdown point. So it makes me think that on a short field landing your aiming point is ALSO your touchdown point. The ACS supports this because it calls for "minimum float" which is what this graphic implies.

My idea on how to accomplish this is to progressively reduce power while pitching up so as to maintain glidepath after clearing the obstacle. So you are integrating the flare in to the descent. By the time you reach the runway you should be at or near the stalling speed and you should touch down right at the point where your glidepath is taking you. In other words you are touching down at your aiming point which is also your touchdown point.

Like this:
Short-Field Landing 2.png
 
Last edited:
FinalApproach said:
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?
Click to expand...
Exactly my thoughts. Suppose I’ve never seen it demonstrated this way from any instructor I’ve encountered.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Where does the ACS talk about touchdown relative to your aiming point?
Click to expand...
The ACS makes no mention of an aiming point for either a normal landing or a short-field landing. It only mentions touchdown point.

However, the AFH does mention aiming point and as you know it 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. In addition, the ACS explicitly mentions touching down with "minimum float" for a short-field landing which supports what the AFH says.

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, is that because my aiming point IS ALSO my touchdown point? If so, how do I fly the aircraft to achieve this minimum float the way the AFH describes it.
 
Last edited:
FinalApproach said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
dmspilot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

In other words there are still separate aiming and touchdown points. The fact that the AFH completely omitted any discussion of aiming point and touchdown point, while showing a picture of aircraft not-flaring/floating at all, is what confused me. But I get it now, that picture displays the approach phase only and not the landing.

I will certainly go up and try these again. I'l plan on flying a stabilized, partial power approach down to the runway at 61 knots. I'm going to maintain 61 knots until entering ground effect right at my aiming point (about 20 feet above the runway). At this point my power will be pulled to idle and I will begin to flare and float. I'm going to try to touch down at a preselected touchdown point about maybe 300 feet in front of my aiming point (instead of the usual 400-500 feet I use for normal landings since my approach speed is 65 knots for normal landings).

I won't bother with pretending there are any obstacles on the approach path and I will not follow the POH procedure to start progressively pulling power once clear of the imaginary 50 foot obstacle. I will simply fly a normal approach and landing, except I will do it at 61 knots instead of 65, and I will expect to float a little bit less distance.

That is my understanding of how to do it for a practical test. My impression is that it's done a little differently out in the real world, but I'm happy to just pass my test for now.
 
Last edited:
FinalApproach said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
MauleSkinner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top