How do perform short field landings for practical test

[FinalApproach]

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?


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?

 

[rhkennerly]

As a practical matter, I don't think there is much difference between the two. Most pilots are "workin' it" all the way down with elevator and throttle jockeying. Now, if you've got the older Cessna with the 40 degree flaps, then you can do some spectacular short field work, but it takes a completely different technique.

In the far back of beyond, they have a saying: the shorter the field, the longer the final. What they're really saying is that for a true short, short field landing, you're going to set up way out because you're gonna be behind the power curve for most of the trip in. It takes a while to stabilize the sink rate with power as you hold a nosehigh attitude. Last week I worked my Bushcat down to 35 mph with a 10 degree nose up while carrying 2000-2500 rpm (geared rotax). I landed at a walk. But I'd been SOL if the money burner quit. Don't do that on your test. check YT for Backcountry 182 for some pretty spectacular shortfield work.

 

[MauleSkinner]

My first question would be, which of those more closely resembles your normal landing technique? For reference, I’m a “runway made, power idle, and lower the nose to maintain speed until it’s time to arrest the descent” guy on normal landings.

The next question would be, if doing exactly the same thing with a lower initial airspeed will result in a shorter touchdown point (with minimal float), is there a good reason to change technique completely simply because you’re trying to land shorter?

 

[ateamer]

What has your CFI taught you to do?

 

[Clip4]

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?

The short field task for the practical test is not over a 50 ft. obstacle. It is just a short field landing.

To perform a short field for the private in calm wind, the key is choosing an aim point 50 ft -75 ft ahead (in front) of your desired touch down point, having a stabilized approach and managing energy. Both Airspeed and altitude is energy.

Trim the plane for 60 KIAS and descend using power to arrive not more than 4 ft. above your aim point. You then smoothly reduce the power and land. You are permitted to extend your downwind leg a small distance to give you more time to set up a stabilized approach.

The safest way to practice this solo is to select the aim point markings on the runway as your touch down point and to use the center stripes for distance. If you come up short, you are still over hard surface.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

The POH gives you procedures. The others give you techniques. Follow the procedures and learn the techniques that give you the best results.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Just don’t land longer than you normally do.

 

[Gary Ward]

Good luck OP.
I bet you will do fine.

The POH gives you procedures. The others give you techniques. Follow the procedures and learn the techniques that give you the best results.

So true as I really learned them after I got my PPL. On my own early on and discovered what techniques worked for me and my plane. I have 40°of flaps in my 172. Love the 40 flaps.

 

[Gary Ward]

Just don’t land longer than you normally do.

I was gonna say, I pretty much do a short field landing every time I land. I already have my next set of brakes on my work bench. My tires wear like steel. lol

 

[MauleSkinner]

I was gonna say, I pretty much do a short field landing every time I land. I already have my set of brakes on my work bench. My tires wear like steel. lol

I used to fly with a guy whose short field technique was turning a 3-mile final at under 350 feet, fully configured, minimum speed, wheels between the REILs, and touch down twice as far down the runway as his normal landing.

 

[Gary Ward]

We have trees at both ends of our runway, got to get pretty close to the tops on approach when your looking to land short. My buddy in his arrow has to get close as we only have 2800' runway. 3 times what I need for a 172, not so much with his arrow or my other friends moony. I think I mostly fly the #2 example above in my floaty 172.

 

[rhkennerly]

Just had a local incident where the pilot was doing a short field landing while at the same time hitting the numbers. Came up a bit short, which is usually okay….unless the runway is 8 inches taller than the ground you’re landing on.

 

[Racerx]

The short field is really just an accuracy landing.

 

[ateamer]

The short field is really just an accuracy landing.

This. Be on speed so you don’t float, and land on your target. The biggest difference between a short field and normal landing is heavier braking if needed.

 

[FinalApproach]

This. Be on speed so you don’t float, and land on your target. The biggest difference between a short field and normal landing is heavier braking if needed.

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?

 

[FinalApproach]

The short field task for the practical test is not over a 50 ft. obstacle. It is just a short field landing.

To perform a short field for the private in calm wind, the key is choosing an aim point 50 ft -75 ft ahead (in front) of your desired touch down point, having a stabilized approach and managing energy. Both Airspeed and altitude is energy.

Trim the plane for 60 KIAS and descend using power to arrive not more than 4 ft. above your aim point. You then smoothly reduce the power and land. You are permitted to extend your downwind leg a small distance to give you more time to set up a stabilized approach.

The safest way to practice this solo is to select the aim point markings on the runway as your touch down point and to use the center stripes for distance. If you come up short, you are still over hard surface.

Just so I understand...

You trim for 60 and use power to glide to an aiming point 50-75 feet prior to touchdown point. Then when just above the runway at your aiming point you pull the power and the plane settles right down?

I'm not arguing but I don't understand how that is possible since on a normal approach I am at 65 knots, pull power and begin to flare ~20 feet above the runway, and that results in a floating distance of about 400-500 feet before touchdown. If I ever touchdown at any speed above 50 knots the plane just bounces back into the air since that is too much airspeed and the plane is still flying.

How are you able to get it to settle down and stay planted within 75 feet with an approach speed of 60 knots? Is this in a C172??

 

[Clip4]

We have trees at both ends of our runway, got to get pretty close to the tops on approach when your looking to land short. My buddy in his arrow has to get close as we only have 2800' runway. 3 times what I need for a 172, not so much with his arrow or my other friends moony. I think I mostly fly the #2 example above in my floaty 172.

I

You really need to get out an Arrow POH. I landed Mooneys and Arrows into a 2000 ft runway over an obstacle all the time without an issue. The Arrow distance is not 3x the 172. Taking off on a hot day is where you need to be concerned.

 

[Albany Tom]

Agree on the Arrow, except I've never flown the T tail version so don't know if it's different. The others pretty much anybody can land one in a spot where you might not get out on a hot day, even here in the flat NE, and I say that as by far not the greatest pilot in the world. They're easy to slow down, come down steep easily, and don't float if your speed is good.

 

[midlifeflyer]

We have trees at both ends of our runway, got to get pretty close to the tops on approach when your looking to land short. My buddy in his arrow has to get close as we only have 2800' runway. 3 times what I need for a 172, not so much with his arrow or my other friends moony. I think I mostly fly the #2 example above in my floaty 172.

A few years ago, I stopped giving a spot on the runway as the short field landing goal when doing recurrent training. Instead, I give a scenario where there was a problem and the pilot needed to turn off at the 1st taxiway after the numbers. I felt that “shortening” the available runway was a bit more realistic. Depending which end, that’s either 1300’ or 1,000’. Yesterday I gave a flight review in a Mooney. The pilot nailed it. The 1000’ one.

I haven’t had a chance to try it with an Arrow. OTOH, my first flight ever in an Arrow was out of an 1800’ runway.

Sorry, I really don’t have anything for our (over-) analytical OP. My technique when teaching these is too simple. Without worrying about the spot, be on airspeed in the proper configuration to learning how the airplane performs. With that knowledge, you can choose your aim point accordingly.

 

[Gary Ward]

I

You really need to get out an Arrow POH. I landed Mooneys and Arrows into a 2000 ft runway over an obstacle all the time without an issue. The Arrow distance is not 3x the 172. Taking off on a hot day is where you need to be concerned.

I didnt mean to say the arrow takes 3X as much runway, I meant 2800' is over 3X what I need to land a 172.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I didnt mean to say the arrow takes 3X as much runway, I meant 2800' is over 3X what I need to land a 172.

The way I read it, you said exactly what you meant to.

 

[ja_user]

The FAA and many instructors used to teach 2, #1 is a more stable approach and what the FAA is looking for now. This is why the Airplane flying hand book and ACS are referencing it.

Airspeed should be 1.2 x stall for short fields and 1.3 for normal landings.

 

[GeorgeC]

If we're talking about a checkride: ask your CFI what the DPE will expect, but I'd bet on the ACS / stabilized approach party line.

If we're talking about actual flying: If you're approaching at 65 and "flaring" at 20 feet, you're gonna float and then be low on energy at the end. Vso is ~40, 1.3x that is ~52; on a calm day with no obstructions, try flying your approach at 60 and fly it all the way into ground effect before you level off, and only then start ratcheting the wheel back to hold it off until the mains touch. Then try it again at 55.

 

[Racerx]

This. Be on speed so you don’t float, and land on your target. The biggest difference between a short field and normal landing is heavier braking if needed.

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.

 

[ateamer]

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?

This is something that you really, really need to be going over with your instructor. The flare is not digital - it’s not an action that is executed upon a parameter being met, i.e. close the throttle and add back pressure upon reaching 20 feet above the runway. It’s a combination of visual and feel - what you see out the front with height above runway, pitch angle, speed, and how much back pressure you need to keep adding as the plane slows.

Getting those landings down pat is a visual and physical skill much more than a knowledge item - much like doing a steep turn and adjusting back pressure and throttle (if needed) by what you see out the window and feel on the yoke.

 

[Racerx]

Just so I understand...

You trim for 60 and use power to glide to an aiming point 50-75 feet prior to touchdown point. Then when just above the runway at your aiming point you pull the power and the plane settles right down?

I'm not arguing but I don't understand how that is possible since on a normal approach I am at 65 knots, pull power and begin to flare ~20 feet above the runway, and that results in a floating distance of about 400-500 feet before touchdown. If I ever touchdown at any speed above 50 knots the plane just bounces back into the air since that is too much airspeed and the plane is still flying.

How are you able to get it to settle down and stay planted within 75 feet with an approach speed of 60 knots? Is this in a C172??

I haven't read your poh for what they call for speeds or flap wise vs a normal landing. But the examiner will have you pick a point. Say second runway stripe. Touching down before that is a fail. So you must be cognisant of wind speed.

I'm a terrible judge at height. You're not using an altimeter, so guessing you're 20 feet above the runway never helped me. It's a feel thing. And I learned that flare height is is way lower than what I thought 20' is.

Read the ACS. I believe it's -5kts +10 on approach. That pretty much puts you at any llanding configuration speed You just need to be accurate with your touchdown. Being fast you'll float. But you don't have the error threshold you do on the lower end.

Bottom line, do what you need to do to put it down where you need to.

 

[MauleSkinner]

If we're talking about a checkride: ask your CFI what the DPE will expect, but I'd bet on the ACS / stabilized approach party line.

Unfortunately that party line is taken too far by a lot of people…one of the things you generally have to do to land an airplane is destabilize the approach.

 

[RyanB]

You perform glideslope 1. Your DPE is going to want to see a stabilized approach, the only difference is that you’re approach angle will be steeper to demonstrate clearing a 50ft obstacle and then landing it within a specified distance.

 

[MauleSkinner]

You perform glideslope 1. Your DPE is going to want to see a stabilized approach, the only difference is that you’re approach angle will be steeper to demonstrate clearing a 50ft obstacle and then landing it within a specified distance.

So “glideslope 1” is how a normal approach is done as well, just at a shallower angle?

 

[FinalApproach]

My first question would be, which of those more closely resembles your normal landing technique? For reference, I’m a “runway made, power idle, and lower the nose to maintain speed until it’s time to arrest the descent” guy on normal landings.

The next question would be, if doing exactly the same thing with a lower initial airspeed will result in a shorter touchdown point (with minimal float), is there a good reason to change technique completely simply because you’re trying to land shorter?

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.

For a short field landing, all I know is that I'm supposed to approach at 61 knots and full flaps and land at or within 200 feet of a designated touchdown point. I hold it stabilized at 61 knots and full flaps until I'm clear of my 50 foot obstacle. At that point, I start progressively reducing power. Now from here I am not sure what to do.

The ACS, AFH, and Embry-Riddle indicate that you should maintain a constant glide path down to your touchdown point. This makes me think you have to progressively pitch the nose up after reducing power, otherwise your glide path will steepen towards the ground. Progressively pitching the nose up will maintain your glide path while bleeding off your airspeed. The goal here is to time everything so that your main wheels touch down at your touchdown point just as your stall horn begins going off. Your glide path remains constant all the way down to your touchdown point and there should be almost zero floating. With this technique it seems that your aiming point and your touchdown point are the same point. 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.

The POH technique indicates that you should maintain a constant airspeed after clearing your obstacle and reducing power. So this means that your glide path will steepen initially when you reduce power and pitch down, but when you enter ground effect at 61 knots you can not touch down because that is too much airspeed, so you are going to have to float to dissipate airspeed before touching down. The idea here seems to be to modulate your float so that you touch down right at your touchdown point. This technique implies you should have an aiming point preceding your touchdown point but I am not sure how far to lead my touchdown point by. Someone said earlier in this thread 50-75 feet but I don't see how the plane will only float 50-75 feet if you enter ground effect at 60 knots. It seems you would float at least a couple hundred feed with that much speed.

I'm trying to figure out if I'm understanding all this correctly and which techniqe I should use for a practical test. My CFI is a good kid but he unfortunately can't come up with an explanation. He just tell me to hit my point and do my after landing procedure with the flaps/brakes/elevator.

The ACS/AFH imply one way, yet the POH implies a different way. I thought the POH trumps the ACS/AFH. I'm not even clear on when to start reducing power. POH says when clear of the 50 foot obstacle but others are saying there is no simulated obstacle during a practical test. So when do I start pulling power?? It is all so confusing.

I'd prefer to get some clarification and to understand theoretically what I'm trying to make the airplane do before going up to practice them again.

Thank you all I know this is a lot.

 

[RyanB]

So “glideslope 1” is how a normal approach is done as well, just at a shallower angle?

I’ve seen it taught two different ways. One is a constant rate of descent slightly steeper (<3deg) than a normal approach and landing and lands in the specified area within ACS standards (Private vs CPL). The other is a standard approach angle that clears a 50ft obstacle and then reduces power to increase rate of descent once clear of the 50ft and lands within the specified distance (glide slope 2). Both come down to technique, but the DPE is going to want to see a stabilized approach on the checkride. The short field is simply a spot landing within the given ACS standards.

 

[FinalApproach]

You perform glideslope 1. Your DPE is going to want to see a stabilized approach, the only difference is that you’re approach angle will be steeper to demonstrate clearing a 50ft obstacle and then landing it within a specified distance.

Ok thank you. Can you confirm if my understanding of how to fly glideslope 1 is correct?

When clear of the 50 foot obstacle, I should begin reducing power and simultaneously adjust the pitch attitude up to maintain my glidepath down to my touchdown point. Airspeed bleeds off during this process and results in almost zero floating when you touchdown. The aiming point and touchdown point are the same point since you are not going to be floating. Is this correct?

 

[MauleSkinner]

I’ve seen it taught two different ways. One is a constant rate of descent slightly steeper (<3deg) than a normal approach and landing and lands in the specified area within ACS standards (Private vs CPL). The other is a standard approach angle that clears a 50ft obstacle and then reduces power to increase rate of descent once clear of the 50ft and lands within the specified distance (glide slope 2). Both come down to technique, but the DPE is going to want to see a stabilized approach on the checkride. The short field is simply a spot landing within the given ACS standards.

I guess my question is more about where the stabilized approach ends and the landing begins.

 

[RyanB]

I guess my question is more about where the stabilized approach ends and the landing begins.

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

 

[MauleSkinner]

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

No wonder I have so many pilots bust checkrides for landing beyond outside ACS requirements.

 

[RyanB]

No wonder I have so many pilots bust checkrides for landing beyond outside ACS requirements.

Explain?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Explain?

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.

 

[FinalApproach]

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

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. 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?

 

[midlifeflyer]

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.

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.

Y'know, like the FAA's usage of the term in the Airplane Flying Handbook.

---

An airplane descending on final approach at a constant rate and airspeed travels in a straight line towards a spot on the ground ahead, commonly called the aiming point. If the airplane maintains a constant glide path without a round out for landing, it will strike the ground at the aiming point. [Figure 9-5]

---

 

[geezer]

A lot of discussion of the approach to the short field landing. As posted above by midlifeflyer:

An airplane descending on final approach at a constant rate and airspeed travels in a straight line towards a spot on the ground ahead, commonly called the aiming point. If the airplane maintains a constant glide path without a round out for landing, it will strike the ground at the aiming point. [Figure 9-5]

The goal is what happens after crossing whatever obstruction that actually is at the test airport.

My home airport was short, obstructed at both ends, and every landing was engine idling, 40 degree flaps, and stall plus 10.

My PPL check ride, the power failure landing, I turned final at the correct altitude for a "normal" landing, applied full flaps, verified the stationary point on the windscreen was the numbers, and continued to the flare at the numbers.

The examiner pointed out that there was 3000 feet of unused runway when we stopped, and I could have landed far down it with no penalty.

He then asked what I would have done if I had been too low, I responded "Reduce flaps to 20 to decrease drag, no lift penalty. If more needed, flaps 10, higher speed, reduced drag will move me even further down the runway."

As we taxied in, he said that was a fine short field landing.

Edited to add:
Carrying full flaps to touchdown means much more drag while in the air, earlier touchdown, and quicker availability of braking.