How do perform short field landings for practical test

[RyanB]

Under the ATP ACS, the acceptable touchdown area ends 500 ft beyond the 1000-ft markers. If they don’t start transitioning to landing until the 1000 ft markers (the aiming point on an ILS), they invariably overshoot.

We’re on two different pages with what’s being discussed here. I’m quite certain we aren’t discussing an ATP check ride, but rather someone preparing for their Private Pilot ride.

The touchdown zone can be anything (third stripe, 500ft markers, thousand foot markers etc) which the ACS states the landing must be within x feet beyond that point depending on what certificate level is being applied for. If the intended touchdown zone is the thousand foot markers, the aiming point should be about a stripe and a half prior to that. If you’re still overshooting or undershooting, than the aiming point becomes adjusted until the desired touchdown zone can consistently be achieved within standards. What I’m describing here is not going to lead to a check ride bust under normal circumstances.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Waitaminit. I think you are assuming that "aiming point" in a thread on short field landings is being used in the ILS/runway marking sense. I can't speak of anyone else, but when I use the term for visual landings, I am referring to the point you aim the airplane at in order to touch down where you want. With a true short field, it might well be before the threshold.

No, I am assuming that the term “stabilized approach” in a thread on short field landings means the same thing it does for all other types of landings.

 

[MauleSkinner]

We’re on two different pages with what’s being discussed here. I’m quite certain we aren’t discussing an ATP check ride, but rather someone preparing for their Private Pilot ride.

The touchdown zone can be anything (third stripe, 500ft markers, thousand foot markers etc) which the ACS states the landing must be within x feet beyond that point depending on what certificate level is being applied for. If the intended touchdown zone is the thousand foot markers, the aiming point should be about a stripe a half prior to that. If you’re still overshooting or undershooting, than the aiming point becomes adjusted until the desired touchdown zone can consistently be achieved within standards.

But where does the definition of a stabilized approach change?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I have a video I never YouTube'd because I'm embarrassed. It's a 2500 foot runway with a 300' displaced threshold because of trees on final. I'm embarrassed because I was showing off land landed just before the end of the displacement.

 

[RyanB]

But where does the definition of a stabilized approach change?

No where. What does that have to do with the aiming point and touchdown zone location/selection? You’re still making a stabilized approach to your aiming point, wherever that may be.

 

[midlifeflyer]

No, I am assuming that the term “stabilized approach” in a thread on short field landings means the same thing it does for all other types of landings.

That section of the Airplane Flying Handbook talks about stabilized approaches. So, yes "stabilized approach" means the same thing. But "aiming point" doesn't. I should have captured more of the figure. Note the caption.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That section of the Airplane Flying Handbook talks about stabilized approaches. So, yes "stabilized approach" means the same thing. But "aiming point" doesn't. I should have captured more of the figure. Note the caption.

View attachment 131446

So if the stabilized approach

Goes all the way to the aiming point where the transition begins.

For a short field landing, but not for a normal landing, then either the definition of a stabilized approach is different or a normal landing by design is less stabilized.

 

[MRC01]

Lots of good advice here. At the risk of repeating some of it, I'll explain how I do this: keep it simple. The goal of a short field landing is obvious. How much kinetic energy you have determines how long the landing will be. Since your mass doesn't change, KE is your speed. So fly the final leg and touchdown as slowly as safely possible. If you carry extra speed, it makes the airplane float longer before the wheels touch. And it makes it roll longer before you stop.

So for a short field landing, use full flaps and fly the final leg a bit slower than you normally do. In a 172, no faster than 60 kts.

What to expect when you do this:
This will put you at a steeper than normal approach angle. No problem.
The stall horn may chirp on final. If it does, reduce the yoke back pressure (or push if necessary, but don't overcontrol it).
The flare will require more yoke movement, and it will be quicker/shorter (little or no ground effect).
The wheels will touch down more firmly than usual. No problem.
Let the nose wheel down (gently) more quickly than you normally do.
Brake moderately to further reduce the ground roll.

 

[brcase]

What does it mean to be on speed though? The POH says 61 knots until it's time to flare. When is it time to flare?

Technique 1 has to start to flare way above the runway so as to maintain a constant glide path down to your touchdown point.
Technique 2 has you maintain 61 knots until entering ground effect and flaring/floating to your touchdown point.

Which is the better technique?

For a check Ride I find Method #1 tends to work better.
The problem with #2 is that most students tend to not hold the airplane off long enough and end up touching down short of the designated point. With #1 Method there is almost zero chance of this happening.

Neither one resembles my normal landing technique. My normal landing technique is to fly down to my aiming point at 65 knots, with partial power in (about 1500 RPM), and full flaps. When I'm about 20 feet above the runway, I smoothly pull power to idle, pitch the nose up slightly to round out my flight path, and then as the plane is descending closer to the runway I begin to flare by pitching the nose up to hold the plane off the runway progressively so as to burn off speed. I time everything so that the plane touches down on the main wheels right as the stall horn starts coming on.

Your normal approach is pretty much a short field approach. For a short field approach just lower your approach speed to 55-60mph (60-65 if at gross weight) and adjust your power to get the descent angle you want to clear your obstacle and get down to about 5 feet above the runway just before your designated touchdown point.





For a couple definitions,
Round out - start at 10-50 feet above the runway depending on the descent rate, this is raising the nose to stop the descent of the airplane about 1-5 feet above the runway.
Flare - Raising the nose of the airplane once the airplane is within about 5 feet of the runway to let it slow to minimum speed before touching the runway in a nose high attitude.


Reduce power as soon you have your designated landing area made, usually this will be just as you start Rounding out or flaring.
At a 55kts approach speed there will be almost no float and it may be solid landing, it is a short field landing not a soft field. Also at 55kts there may not really be a round out if you have enough power in it may already be in pretty much a level or even nose high attitude requiring very little flare.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[midlifeflyer]

For a short field landing, but not for a normal landing, then either the definition of a stabilized approach is different or a normal landing by design is less stabilized.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree because I see the same definition of "stabilized descent" for both normal and short landings.

---

A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant-angle glide path towards a predetermined point on the landing runway.

---

There are three differences between "normal" and short.
1. The point you aim the airplane at.
2. The IAS is a bit slower.
3. The glide path angle may be higher (if there is an obstacle to clear or for other reasons)

 

[MauleSkinner]

I guess we're just going to have to disagree because I see the same definition of "stabilized descent" for both normal and short landings.

---

A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant-angle glide path towards a predetermined point on the landing runway.

---

There are three differences between "normal" and short.
1. The point you aim the airplane at.
2. The IAS is a bit slower.
3. The glide path angle may be higher (if there is an obstacle to clear or for other reasons)

that’s my contention, but I think people are throwing the word “stabilized” to indicate why the approach path for a short field approach is the OP’s example 1 rather than 2, which means the AFH diagram you posted of a normal approach is unstable.

 

[RyanB]

I guess we're just going to have to disagree because I see the same definition of "stabilized descent" for both normal and short landings.

My thoughts as well.

 

[midlifeflyer]

that’s my contention, but I think people are throwing the word “stabilized” to indicate why the approach path for a short field approach is the OP’s example 1 rather than 2, which means the AFH diagram you posted of a normal approach is unstable.

I'm not basing anything on the (over) analysis or accuracy of either drawing. Heck, drawing #1 looks like the pilot is going to hit the ground prop first, while #2 looks like a sudden dive to the runway with a long float because of the increase in energy.

Actually, #2 looks like "spot landing" attempt I once saw which had everyone cringing. Fortunately, the pilot pulled out of the dive. Missed the spot of course, and I honestly never saw a Cessna 152 float quite that far down a runway.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'm not basing anything on the (over) analysis or accuracy of either drawing.

Unfortunately the people I’ve been disagreeing with are. “It should look like #1 because the FAA wants a stabilized approach” has been a common theme.

 

[RyanB]

I don't understand. Glideslope 1, to me, implies that there is no transition that takes place at the aiming point. There is no separate aiming point either. Rather your touchdown point and aiming point are the same point.

There has to be an aiming point. If the aiming point and intended touchdown point are the same, you’ll blow right past your target.

The transition occurs while you are on glideslope going down to your aiming/touchdown point. The aircraft is flaring while it is descending down to the point. The transition ends when you touch down on your aiming/touchdown point near a full stall with the power fully off. Right?

No, not at all. How are you going to begin a transition and start a flare while you’re still descending on the glide slope? You can’t begin to dissipate that energy at that stage in the approach. Not how a short field landing is performed, unless maybe you’re a STOL bandit. Please go back and review with your CFI.

 

[midlifeflyer]

View attachment 131448

There is a bit of a historical problem here. Once upon a time, the FAA's preferred short field approach technique involved a level off prior to the obstacle followed by a reduction of power once the obstacle was cleared. Basically what the AFH depicts as an unstabilized short field approach. That was the way I learned to do it when I took lessons and I think most POH, including the one you snipped, followed along. In many, it's still there that way. (Not everything in a POH checklist is based on a limitation; some are just techniques).

When the FAA moved to the stabilized approach concept, the FAA-preferred methodology changed, so that, rather than drive past the obstacle and dive for the runway, we create a descent angle that we can maintain which clears the obstacle.

 

[RyanB]

Unfortunately the people I’ve been disagreeing with are. “It should look like #1 because the FAA wants a stabilized approach” has been a common theme.

I’m lost with what your argument is. The FAA wants to see the short field performed as depicted in glideslope #1, which is a stabilized, constant rate of descent, that clears a 50-ft obstacle and lands within the chosen touchdown point within the ACS standards. I’ve also seen it taught like in glideslope #2 where the airplane clears the 50-ft obstacle and then ‘drops’ in. Frankly I think they both boil down to technique in a real world application, but the FAA prefers the stabilized approach and descent as shown in #1.

 

[dmspilot]

And rather than actually using full brakes and wearing em out when you don't need to, just verbalize "max brakes" so the examiner knows.

No, don't do that. There is no provision in the ACS for that. And you're not going to wear out the brakes from practicing short field landings. Five years worth of teaching student pilots and I never needed new brakes before I sold the plane.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I’m lost with what your argument is. The FAA wants to see the short field performed as depicted in glideslope #1, which is a stabilized, constant rate of descent, that clears a 50-ft obstacle and lands within the chosen touchdown point within the ACS standards. I’ve also seen it taught like in glideslope #2 where the airplane clears the 50-ft obstacle and then ‘drops’ in. Frankly I think they both boil down to technique in a real world application, but the FAA prefers the stabilized approach and descent as shown in #1.

My argument is that people twist the definition of a stabilized approach to mean something it doesn’t.

Occasionally to the detriment of safety.

 

[dmspilot]

Going to idle while pitching up as the obstacle is cleared is a good way to slam the airplane into the ground, though flying an approach in a C172 at 61 knots 400-500 pounds below maximum gross weight, as you typically would in a training environment, could give one the misleading impression that the technique is correct. Are you really going to trust the advice of a flight school who lands its planes so hard that the wings fall off?

 

[RyanB]

My argument is that people twist the definition of a stabilized approach to mean something it doesn’t.

Occasionally to the detriment of safety.

Please tell me how I’m twisting that definition.

 

[dmspilot]

"Stabilized approach" has two words: stabilized and approach. What happens after the obstacle is cleared, below 50 feet, is generally considered to be part of the landing, not the approach. The "stabilized approach" the FAA is referring to is what happens before the obstacle, not after (see post 40 57).

 

[MauleSkinner]

Please tell me how I’m twisting that definition.

Goes all the way to the aiming point where the transition begins.

 

[TCABM]

This has probably already been said, but I’d flip to page 26 of the PPL ACS and use that to inform me on the short field landing expectations.

Yes, it means you have to read and comprehend.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/training_testing/testing/acs/private_airplane_acs_change_1.pdf

 

[RyanB]

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

 

[MauleSkinner]

There is a bit of a historical problem here. Once upon a time, the FAA's preferred short field approach technique involved a level off prior to the obstacle followed by a reduction of power once the obstacle was cleared. Basically what the AFH depicts as an unstabilized short field approach. That was the way I learned to do it when I took lessons and I think most POH, including the one you snipped, followed along. In many, it's still there that way. (Not everything in a POH checklist is based on a limitation; some are just techniques).
View attachment 131450
When the FAA moved to the stabilized approach concept, the FAA-preferred methodology changed, so that, rather than drive past the obstacle and dive for the runway, we create a descent angle that we can maintain which clears the obstacle.

View attachment 131452

Do you have any old FAA guidance to that effect? They were advocating a constant approach angle to the aiming point when I did my Private training in the early 80s. I think I’ve still got my 1965 version of the AFH, but I won’t be home until next week to look.

 

[4RNB]

I am flying in a 1980 C172. I can not understand the correct way to perform a short-field landing.

The short-field approach procedure outlined in my POH says to do this:

"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."

Yet, I watched some videos on youtube from Embry Riddle that showed that the plane should maintain a constant glidepath down to the runway after clearing a 50 ft obstacle. That video instructs pilots to progressively reduce power while pitching up to maintain a constant glide path after clearing the obstacle. The airplane flying handbook has graphics showing the same kind of glide path.

Both techniques say to begin progressively reducing power after clearing the obstacle. The POH says to then lower the pitch to maintain airspeed (61 knots) until it's time to flare (when entering ground effect). Embry-Riddle says to raise the pitch to maintain glidepath down to your touchdown point, which effectively means you are incorporating the flare into your descent down to the runway. The ACS wants pilots to maintain a stabilized approach and for "minimum float" prior to touchdown.

I drew a picture that shows what your glidepath would look like utilizing either technique. Both techniques seem to get you at the same touchdown point, so does it matter which technique you use?

View attachment 131388
Glidepath 1 is what embry riddle, the AFH, and ACS seem to want you to do.
Glidepath 2 is what the POH seems to want you to do.

Doesn't the POH override the ACS and AFH? Which is the correct technique then?

When doing a short-field landing, is it fair to say that my aiming point and touchdown point are the same point? For a normal landing I aim about 500 feet prior to my touchdown point. But for the short field it looks like you are supposed to touch down where you are aiming. Correct?

A couple thoughts
1. What does the ACS say? You need to fly to test standard, so maybe some of this is just mumbo jumbo?
2. I flew a 40 degree flap 172 for my PPL. Came in slowish, put in 40 flaps knowing the straight in trajectory to make it work over the obstacles. Should be about the same as 30 except for how steep it can be done.
3. I think you are interjecting things in your write up/interpretations above. See my bold/red.

Man, I miss those 40 degree flaps aka barn doors

 

[TCABM]

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?

The key portion of that sentence is “for airplane configuration and braking.” If it has guidelines or procedures related to flap usage (frex: flaps 40*, retract immediately upon touchdown), that’s what I’d do.

If the POH is vague and/or silent, I’d do what’s expected (fly the airspeed, touchdown w/in 200ft, max braking) to perform the task.

I would not add a notional 50-ft obstacle just for poops and grins.

ETA: I also would not performa short filed landing over an obstacle for the first time on a checkride; that’s just stupid.

 

[MauleSkinner]

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

Yes, we disagree on the basic premises here. My normal Landing has touchdown at my aiming point. My Shortfieldlanding has touchdown at or before y aiming point.

As @dmspilot Noted above, the approach ends and the transition to Landing begins when you close the throttle to land, usually around 50 feet above the runway.

 

[MauleSkinner]

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?

The takeoff and landing distances in a POH are “short field” distances. The configurations and procedures used to get those numbers are the manufacturers recommendations.

 

[RyanB]

Yes, we disagree on the basic premises here. My normal Landing has touchdown at my aiming point. My Shortfieldlanding has touchdown at or before y aiming point.

Interesting, I’m scratching my head at how that works.

If your aiming point is the same as your touchdown zone, how do you manage to dissipate that energy and not blow past your intended point of landing? Similarly, if you’re touching down before your aiming point, then you must be aiming elsewhere. We’re talking about a 172 here, not a King Air that settles upon throttle reduction.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Interesting, I’m scratching my head at how that works.

If your aiming point is the same as your touchdown zone, how do you manage to dissipate that energy and not blow past your intended point of landing? Similarly, if you’re touching down before your aiming point, then you must be aiming elsewhere. We’re talking about a 172 here, not a King Air that settles upon throttle reduction.

Read the AFM excerpt that the OP quoted. That’s how it works.

 

[RyanB]

Read the AFM excerpt that the OP quoted. That’s how it works.

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.

You are not aiming for a spot 300-500 feet before where you want to touch down because you are not going to be floating from an aiming point to a touchdown point.

Hogwash.

Your glide path remains constant all the way down to your touchdown point and there should be almost zero floating.

In a low wing maybe under perfect conditions, but a 172 is going to have some float.

 

[MauleSkinner]

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.

We’ll, there ya go. If you’re going to do something different than the AFM 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.

 

[RyanB]

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.

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.

 

[FinalApproach]

Yes, we disagree on the basic premises here. My normal Landing has touchdown at my aiming point. My Shortfieldlanding has touchdown at or before y aiming point.

As @dmspilot Noted above, the approach ends and the transition to Landing begins when you close the throttle to land, usually around 50 feet above the runway.

I am so utterly confused.

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? Wouldn't that be a disapproval on a practical test?

 

[FinalApproach]

"Stabilized approach" has two words: stabilized and approach. What happens after the obstacle is cleared, below 50 feet, is generally considered to be part of the landing, not the approach. The "stabilized approach" the FAA is referring to is what happens before the obstacle, not after (see post 40).

That is helpful to understand. Thank you.

It raises a new question, however. If you are NOT going to simulate a 50 foot obstacle on a short-field, then where does the approach end and the roundout/flare begin?

Do you utilize an aiming point and touchdown point for short-field landings? If yes, about how far prior to your touchdown point do you set your aiming point in a C172?

 

[midlifeflyer]

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?

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?

 

[midlifeflyer]

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.

Not if they actually understand the technique.

 

[MauleSkinner]

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.

Yeah but we also disagree on what constitutes an accuracy landing.