How do perform short field landings for practical test

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….
 
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.
 
StraightnLevel said:
What have you guys seen for DPEs expectations of how "soft" a "short" landing must be? A day or two ago, an instructor called my short-field practice a "carrier landing" - it was dead-on the the target point, and firm. Not slam-the-main-gear-through-the-wing-and-explode-the-tires firm, but decidedly not a "soft" landing. My approach is to get into ground effect about one center stripe before the target spot (the 1,000' marks), then cut power to drop the plane onto the target. With full flaps in a Cherokee, it works quite consistently.

So, my question is whether it's OK to be a bit firm in order to nail the target landing spot? Will a DPE accept that approach?
Click to expand...
All my short field landings during check rides were pretty firm. I didn't bounce and the dpes never said anything.
 
FinalApproach said:
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.
Click to expand...
I guess I could go back to my first question: if your normal technique using the short field speed gets you down on the runway with minimal float why change techniques?
 
1721262619220.png

Another part of it is #1 is a precision landing procedure i.e. touch down at a specific point as in what the ACS specifies.
#2 and the the Cessna POH says is probably shorter approach allowing you to touch down sooner if the runway allows you to do so, which they commonly do when they have obstacle near the end of the runway.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
MauleSkinner said:
I guess I could go back to my first question: if your normal technique using the short field speed gets you down on the runway with minimal float why change techniques?
Click to expand...

Because I don't consider floating 300-500 feet to be "minimal float".

Take a look at how Embry-Riddle presents the short-field approach and landing. They clearly show that the plane flies a direct glide path down to a touchdown point with zero floating. Their verbal instructions in that video even tell you to fly it that way, by progressively pulling power and pitching up so as to maintain a constant glidepath down to your touchdown point. They explicitly contrasted it with a normal approach and landing which shows the plane floating during the roundout and flare and imply to NOT do it the same way as a normal landing. Then I noticed that the AFH presents a short-field in the same way as Embry-Riddle does, but I didn't realize that the AFH is only showing you the approach segment but not the landing segment. On top of that I noticed that the ACS specifically mentions "minimal float".

I went up with my instructor and one time we did a short-field approach and landing directly down to a touchdown point maintaining a constant glide path with with almost zero float (like in the Embry-Riddle video) and I thought that's how it should be done.

However I began to ask questions because the procedure for a short-field approach and landing in the POH specifies doing it differently and it was my impression that the POH trumps the ACS and AFH. Since doing the procedure according to the POH causes me to float about 300-400 feet with an approach speed of 61 knots, I began to get confused as to what the hell is going on. I watched more videos about it and some of them mentioned using an aiming point which I thought that was something used for a normal landing only. But no those videos were talking about it in association with a short-field approach and landing, which I thought according to Embry-Riddle and the AFH the aiming point WAS the touchdown point, which confused me more. To be honest I am still not clear on what is officially the correct technique. The correct techniqe seems to further vary based on whether you are doing a short-field on a practical test vs a short-field in the real world.

Whenever I brought these question up with my instructor he just kept telling me that it doesn't really matter how I do it and to just make sure I hit my spot and do my after touchdown procedure (flaps, brakes, elevator, aileron). I guess ultimately he is right.

Do you agree that some of this information is contradictory and at least understand why I was confused?
 
Last edited:
brcase said:
View attachment 131476

Another part of it is #1 is a precision landing procedure i.e. touch down at a specific point as in what the ACS specifies.
#2 and the the Cessna POH says is probably shorter approach allowing you to touch down sooner if the runway allows you to do so, which they commonly do when they have obstacle near the end of the runway.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...
Yes. When I did it the #2 method, where we chopped power and pitched down to maintain 61 knots until entering ground effect, I noticed we touched down earlier than method #1. So I guess that picture isn't even accurate in terms of glide path if you chopped power all the way immediately after clearing your obstacle.
 
FinalApproach said:
Because I don't consider floating 300-500 feet to be "minimal float".

Take a look at how Embry-Riddle presents the short-field approach and landing. They clearly show that the plane flies a direct glide path down to a touchdown point with zero floating. Their verbal instructions in that video even tell you to fly it that way, by progressively pulling power and pitching up so as to maintain a constant glidepath down to your touchdown point. They explicitly contrasted it with a normal approach and landing which shows the plane floating during the roundout and flare and imply to NOT do it the same way as a normal landing. Then I noticed that the AFH presents a short-field in the same way as Embry-Riddle does, but I didn't realize that the AFH is only showing you the approach segment but not the landing segment. On top of that I noticed that the ACS specifically mentions "minimal float".

I went up with my instructor and one time we did a short-field approach and landing directly down to a touchdown point maintaining a constant glide path with with almost zero float (like in the Embry-Riddle video) and I thought that's how it should be done.

However I began to ask questions because the procedure for a short-field approach and landing in the POH specifies doing it differently and it was my impression that the POH trumps the ACS and AFH. Since doing the procedure according to the POH causes me to float about 300-400 feet with an approach speed of 61 knots, I began to get confused as to what the hell is going on. I watched more videos about it and some of them mentioned using an aiming point which I thought that was something used for a normal landing only. But no those videos were talking about it in association with a short-field approach and landing, which I thought according to Embry-Riddle and the AFH the aiming point WAS the touchdown point, which confused me more. To be honest I am still not clear on what is officially the correct technique. The correct techniqe seems to further vary based on whether you are doing a short-field on a practical test vs a short-field in the real world.

Whenever I brought these question up with my instructor he just kept telling me that it doesn't really matter how I do it and to just make sure I hit my spot and do my after touchdown procedure (flaps, brakes, elevator, aileron). I guess ultimately he is right.

Do you agree that some of this information is contradictory and at least understand why I was confused?
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree there’s contradictory information out there (and here)…

It really doesn’t matter what you (or I) consider to be minimal float…it’s the FAA’s definition that’s controlling. If your instructor won’t give you further guidance, I’d suggest asking your DPE.

I will also suggest going back and reading Post 61 again.
 
midlifeflyer said:
why would they tell me a flare height?
Click to expand...
One of the things people sometimes don't realize is, at one time, there was an assumption in manual checklists that pilot knew stuff that more modern manuals assume they don't. How else can one account for such things as checklist items to add power for takeoff? Take that older Cherokee manual. It has a landing distance vs density altitude graph which specifies 40 degrees of flaps, no wind, level runway, for a short field at two different weights. Then, just before the "best technique" paragraph @StraightnLevel posted, it explains landings in general. The underlying assumption is, what more do you really need?
1721306620856.png
 
Here's the relevant part of the ACS
PA.IV.F.S5 Select and aim for a suitable touchdown point considering the wind, landing surface, and obstructions.
PA.IV.F.S6 Establish the recommended approach and landing configuration and airspeed, and adjust pitch attitude and power as required to maintain a stabilized approach.
PA.IV.F.S7 Maintain manufacturer’s published approach airspeed or in its absence not more than 1.3 VSO, +10/-5 knots with gust factor applied.
PA.IV.F.S8 Maintain directional control and appropriate crosswind correction throughout the approach and landing.
PA.IV.F.S9 Make smooth, timely, and correct control application during the round out and touchdown.
PA.IV.F.S10 Touch down at a proper pitch attitude within 200 feet beyond or on 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.

Pretty sure you pass if you do what's highlighted in red without doing other stuff that scares the DPE. I just focused flying the plane to hit the target, coming a bit slower than a normal landing to minimize float.
 
StraightnLevel said:
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?
Click to expand...
I posted it on POA before but my Favorite is the Bellanca Cruisemaster Manual. The landing section says something like "Your Bellanca Cruisemaster lands conventionally, other pilots will be impressed with your landings"

I guess that means if you don't impress the DPE you didn't use the manufactures recommendations.

Brian
 
brcase said:
I posted it on POA before but my Favorite is the Bellanca Cruisemaster Manual. The landing section says something like "Your Bellanca Cruisemaster lands conventionally, other pilots will be impressed with your landings"

I guess that means if you don't impress the DPE you didn't use the manufactures recommendations.

Brian
Click to expand...
This Comanche didn't follow the Piper POH - so did he really land? ;):)

 
MauleSkinner said:
Yes, I agree there’s contradictory information out there (and here)…

It really doesn’t matter what you (or I) consider to be minimal float…it’s the FAA’s definition that’s controlling. If your instructor won’t give you further guidance, I’d suggest asking your DPE.

I will also suggest going back and reading Post 61 again.
Click to expand...
Last question, what is the FAA's definition of minimal float? I can not find any specification.
 
FinalApproach said:
Last question, what is the FAA's definition of minimal float? I can not find any specification.
Click to expand...
The FAA does specify the maximum distance to touch down after the aim point, perhaps that will suffice as the definition. My ancient copy of the PTS say at or within 200 feet beyond a specified point.
 
FinalApproach said:
Last question, what is the FAA's definition of minimal float? I can not find any specification.
Click to expand...

It’s stated specifically in the ACS that’s been posted several times now.

Within 200 ft of the specified point or touchdown zone.

How will the DPE know where you intend to land? He’ll either a) tell you or b) ask you where you intend to touchdown.
 
FinalApproach said:
Last question, what is the FAA's definition of minimal float? I can not find any specification.
Click to expand...
They don’t specifically define it, probably for very good reasons…different airplanes and different techniques will vary in what would be considered normal float for a short field landing. If you’re using appropriate speed and technique for your airplane, you’ll be fine.
 
TCABM said:
It’s stated specifically in the ACS that’s been posted several times now.

Within 200 ft of the specified point or touchdown zone.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t state how much float is allowed. It states where the touchdown can be, regardless of the amount of float.
 
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...

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.
 
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...
If they meant it to say that, they would have used “aiming point” instead of “specified point,” or somehow stated that the applicant should aim at and touch down within 200 feet beyond the specified point.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If they meant it to say that, they would have used “aiming point” instead of “specified point,” or somehow stated that the applicant should aim at and touch down within 200 feet beyond the specified point.
Click to expand...
The specified point is where you say wheels are going to touch. You can't be short of that point and you can't be more than 200 feet past it. Pretty simple.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If they meant it to say that, they would have used “aiming point” instead of “specified point,” or somehow stated that the applicant should aim at and touch down within 200 feet beyond the specified point.
Click to expand...

I never said aiming point. Again, the ACS seems pretty clear; touchdown within 200ft of a designated spot.

5018a8d626e1e37007f14e0ecffd1aaa.jpg
 
The opposite of minimum floating is excessive floating. Not being able to touchdown within 200 feet of a specified point would seem to qualify as excessive floating, making the requirement of "minimum floating" redundant. If that's not what they mean, then the term is subjective and should be removed from a document whose purpose is to establish objective standards.
 
TCABM said:
I never said aiming point. Again, the ACS seems pretty clear; touchdown within 200ft of a designated spot.

5018a8d626e1e37007f14e0ecffd1aaa.jpg
Click to expand...
Your response was to a question about how far you can float. The touchdown requirement is the end of the float, but says nothing about where it begins. There is no set maximum float distance allowed.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top