FinalApproach
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2024
- Messages
- 1
- Display Name
Display name:
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?
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?
