My "New and Improved" Landings, Right on the 1000-Foot Bars

S

ScottVal

Pre-Flight
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
34
Display Name
Display name:
Scott
Hello-
I've been flying off and on since 1987, and I have about 300 hours. Lately I've been working on getting instrument-rated. I realize that discussions on this forum cannot be a substitute for actual training with my CFII, for whom I have the utmost respect.

When I was in primary PP training, back around 1993, my primary instructor used to mention how nice it was to land on the 1000-foot bars, but never really insisted on it. BTW, I'm talking about a 4000-foot runway here.

The first time anyone ever yelled at me about landing short of the 1000-foot bars was the examiner for my PP checkride, back in 1994. He yelled at me about it, but gave me a passing mark on the checkride anyway.

Now my CFII is really getting on me about landing on the 1000-foot bars. Not only that, but flaring nice and low and fast, so there is no chance of coming down hard if there is a sudden change in the wind. And when I say "land on the 1000-foot bars," I mean on the bars (not short), or a little past them (400 feet or less).

Today I was practicing such landings, solo, as recommended by my CFII, in an attempt to finally nail these "new and improved" landings. I still don't feel I can do it consistently (land on the 1000-foot bars, or a little past them), but I feel that the practice did me some good (five landings).

I just wanted to open up this discussion and see what ya'll thought of all this. Thanks.
-Scott V.
 
If you can consistently put it on the 1000' bars, then you can put it on the first or second stripe past the numbers. You'll need that skill to go into a shorter strip someday.
How the heck did you demonstrate a short field landing on your checkride?
 
Sorry, I can't help you there skipper.

I'm usually taxi'd off before the 1000' markers ... ;)
 
Never heard that for light GA aircraft. The 1000ft bars (to me) is the touchdown aim point for larger aircraft.

Heaven forbid you need to land on a narrow 2500ft runway with no "bars", VASI, PAPI, or even threshold marking lights.

I mix it up for my students, touch on the first or second stripe, land between the numbers 2 and 0, land in the 0. It's normally 20L so the 0 is near centerline.

I do ride my students about centerline, why are you landing over here, the center stripe is over there. And sometimes to challenge them, a narrow runway, land centered between the center strip and right edge. The key is they can land it where they want to land, not where the airplane decides to quit flying and touch down.

Now as to speeds, anything more than 1.2-1.3 x Vs is too fast.
 
ScottVal said:
Hello-
I've been flying off and on since 1987, and I have about 300 hours. Lately I've been working on getting instrument-rated. I realize that discussions on this forum cannot be a substitute for actual training with my CFII, for whom I have the utmost respect.

When I was in primary PP training, back around 1993, my primary instructor used to mention how nice it was to land on the 1000-foot bars, but never really insisted on it. BTW, I'm talking about a 4000-foot runway here.

The first time anyone ever yelled at me about landing short of the 1000-foot bars was the examiner for my PP checkride, back in 1994. He yelled at me about it, but gave me a passing mark on the checkride anyway.

Now my CFII is really getting on me about landing on the 1000-foot bars. Not only that, but flaring nice and low and fast, so there is no chance of coming down hard if there is a sudden change in the wind. And when I say "land on the 1000-foot bars," I mean on the bars (not short), or a little past them (400 feet or less).

Today I was practicing such landings, solo, as recommended by my CFII, in an attempt to finally nail these "new and improved" landings. I still don't feel I can do it consistently (land on the 1000-foot bars, or a little past them), but I feel that the practice did me some good (five landings).

I just wanted to open up this discussion and see what ya'll thought of all this. Thanks.
-Scott V.
Click to expand...
First things first. You should first be comfortable on a 2 thousand foot runway before you worry about an instrument ticket. Learn to fly first.
 
Using the 1000 footers is a good way to stabilize landings, get that aim point down, and land consistently. Then a 2000 foot runway won't seem long and you will be able to leave tire marks on the numbers.

Never heard of any rules that states you need to land on the 1000 footers.

If I miss my aim point by 20-30 feet on the beach then I may have a fun time trying to miss bears or other obstacles....like the ocean.
 
BillTIZ said:
Never heard that for light GA aircraft. The 1000ft bars (to me) is the touchdown aim point for larger aircraft.

Heaven forbid you need to land on a narrow 2500ft runway with no "bars", VASI, PAPI, or even threshold marking lights.

I mix it up for my students, touch on the first or second stripe, land between the numbers 2 and 0, land in the 0. It's normally 20L so the 0 is near centerline.

I do ride my students about centerline, why are you landing over here, the center stripe is over there. And sometimes to challenge them, a narrow runway, land centered between the center strip and right edge. The key is they can land it where they want to land, not where the airplane decides to quit flying and touch down.

Now as to speeds, anything more than 1.2-1.3 x Vs is too fast.
Click to expand...

My instructors were the same way. After flying in the bush for years I see why all that is important to learn early.
 
Only thing I can think of, if this is past of your ifr work, that the CFi is trying to build a pattern that mimics the ifr approach and builds a habit if/when you mice up to larger planes.
 
Sounds like practice for your IFR ride,once you get it down,the instructor will link the landings to the approach speeds and rate of decent.
 
Good practice for Oshkosh. "Mooney cleared to land on the Purple dot."
 
Spot landing practice is alot of fun.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
Gsxrpilot said:
Good practice for Oshkosh. "Mooney cleared to land on the Purple dot."
Click to expand...



Then just as you're about to touch down they say "Mooney, fly on down the runway for me, all the way down."

Landing is a dance. Or like snowflakes. No two are alike.

Trying to turn landings into something rote and robotic like "push this, pull that, ASI on 'x', flaps x*, and you will land on the markers each time, ..... does not work.
 
You mean I'm not supposed to chirp the tires after brushing the threshold lights? I've been doing it wrong....a lot.

I typically go for the numbers...usually make it. Sometimes not. Rarely a greaser....sometimes a bounce. But love each second of it!!!!!
 
ScottVal said:
Hello-
I've been flying off and on since 1987, and I have about 300 hours. Lately I've been working on getting instrument-rated. I realize that discussions on this forum cannot be a substitute for actual training with my CFII, for whom I have the utmost respect.

When I was in primary PP training, back around 1993, my primary instructor used to mention how nice it was to land on the 1000-foot bars, but never really insisted on it. BTW, I'm talking about a 4000-foot runway here.

The first time anyone ever yelled at me about landing short of the 1000-foot bars was the examiner for my PP checkride, back in 1994. He yelled at me about it, but gave me a passing mark on the checkride anyway.

Now my CFII is really getting on me about landing on the 1000-foot bars. Not only that, but flaring nice and low and fast, so there is no chance of coming down hard if there is a sudden change in the wind. And when I say "land on the 1000-foot bars," I mean on the bars (not short), or a little past them (400 feet or less).

Today I was practicing such landings, solo, as recommended by my CFII, in an attempt to finally nail these "new and improved" landings. I still don't feel I can do it consistently (land on the 1000-foot bars, or a little past them), but I feel that the practice did me some good (five landings).

I just wanted to open up this discussion and see what ya'll thought of all this. Thanks.
-Scott V.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I learned to shoot for the numbers, but when I was close to my check ride, I was told that the DPE would treat a landing short of the 1,000 foot marks as a fail. So I practiced using the 1,000 marks as the threshold, and it worked out fine. I had better landings as well.

When I earned my instrument rating, having a stabilized approach for the thousand footers was a piece of cake.

I still practice to land where I want, and often shoot to get off by 1,000 to 1,500 ft to get off the runway for trailing traffic.
 
The 1,000' markers are the place to aim unless more runway is needed. Crossing the threshold at 50' should put you right about there assuming little or no float. Ducking below can get you in trouble with wake, and also eat into your buffer.
Maybe this is my thinking because I've been flying professionally for so long.
 
Thanks for all the replies.
I didn't mean to imply that I was not tested for short field landings on my checkride, because I was, or that I don't know how to land on short fields, because I do, or that I don't know how to fly at all, because I do.

I mentioned in the OP that I was talking about a 4000' runway. I realize that it is a different game if the runway is short.

As for speeds, I said my CFII likes me to flare nice and fast and low. In a 172, he likes me coming in at 65 knots, one foot off the runway. At least that seems to be the ideal he is shooting for.
-Scott V.
 
Is 65 an IFR thing? That's 5 above what is typical coming over the threshold in that aircraft. If I'm by myself, I shoot for around 57-58.
 
Two big guys and full fuel on a hot day, 65knots in a 172 is a safe bet.

I wouldn't argue with my CFI over a few knots. If he wants 65, give it to him.

You can practice your STOL work when your light and alone.
 
I am assuming that the DPE might have given the instruction that the intended touchdown point for landings was the 1000' marks. This is the simulated end of the runway. This is frequently done so that if you do land short of the touchdown point, you are still landing on the runway. This is a built in safety margin frequently done during training and the checkride. As such landing short of those marks is considered landing short of the runway in the simulation and is cause for concern and even a busted checkride. The important thing is to be able to hit your marks whether that be on the numbers, the 1000' marks, or even further down a real long runway if you want to avoid a long taxi. Accuracy is important and it is easy to get sloppy on real long and wide runways.
 
Almost all the replies are for VFR landings.

This is instrument training.

At minimums on an ILS, you'll break out at 200 AGL aimed straight for the 1000 foot bars. That's where the GS transmitter is. You'll be at 90 knots (probably), not 60. You will have no more than 10 flaps at the time. Trying to shorten your approach to show off means additional risk; you already have to dump the flaps, slow to approach speed, and perhaps dive for the runway (some minimums are kinda high with close in missed approach points, sometimes even right over the threshold). Now, under that circumstance, exactly why would you want to shorten your approach by 1000 feet? It's not like Uncle Joe's backyard meadow has an ILS. That's irrelevant.

Many instrument minimums are well below pattern altitude. And visibility may be marginal -- to descend below minimums legally, you have to have the "runway environment" in sight, but that may be only the approach lighting. The appropriate thing is to follow them in a straight line at constant descent rate. And if they don't line up like you expect, go missed.

The VFR guys should try tracking an ILS to minimums (VFR -- perhaps as a safety pilot) to see just how close in this is. It's shocking the first time you see it.
 
MAKG1 said:
Almost all the replies are for VFR landings.



This is instrument training.



At minimums on an ILS, you'll break out at 200 AGL aimed straight for the 1000 foot bars. That's where the GS transmitter is. You'll be at 90 knots (probably), not 60. You will have no more than 10 flaps at the time. Trying to shorten your approach to show off means additional risk; you already have to dump the flaps, slow to approach speed, and perhaps dive for the runway (some minimums are kinda high with close in missed approach points, sometimes even right over the threshold). Now, under that circumstance, exactly why would you want to shorten your approach by 1000 feet? It's not like Uncle Joe's backyard meadow has an ILS. That's irrelevant.



Many instrument minimums are well below pattern altitude. And visibility may be marginal -- to descend below minimums legally, you have to have the "runway environment" in sight, but that may be only the approach lighting. The appropriate thing is to follow them in a straight line at constant descent rate. And if they don't line up like you expect, go missed.



The VFR guys should try tracking an ILS to minimums (VFR -- perhaps as a safety pilot) to see just how close in this is. It's shocking the first time you see it.
Click to expand...


Very well stated. If your engine quits on an ILS, you likely won't make the runway because you are only on a 3 degree glide slope. It is shockingly disconcerting the first time you see it without the hood.

A non precision approach gives you some better margin of altitude, but it's still well below typical pattern altitudes.
 
MAKG1 said:
Almost all the replies are for VFR landings.

This is instrument training.

At minimums on an ILS, you'll break out at 200 AGL aimed straight for the 1000 foot bars. That's where the GS transmitter is. You'll be at 90 knots (probably), not 60. You will have no more than 10 flaps at the time.
Click to expand...

Thanks MAKG, that is what I was trying to ask before.
 
woodchucker said:
Thanks MAKG, that is what I was trying to ask before.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a few things about instrument approaches are quite different from VFR approaches. This is one of them.

Another is that a missed approach is not like a go-around. You're already fast and have minimal or no flaps, so you push the throttle in and start climbing right away. No waiting for the speed to build; it's already there.

In the worst case, you're barely 200 feet off the deck, and you can't see it. You want altitude in a hurry. Unlike doing that on short final VFR, you're still far on the front side of the power curve.
 
During my ifr training it was not ingrained in me about hitting the 1000 foot stripes. It was break out dump the speed add the flaps land the plane, safely. I'm not flying a jet, it is a cessna and now a Piper the thing is a brick with wheels and wings. One of my practice approaches into Kalb on the ils, I was instructed to fly it as fast as possible and get the hell of the run because of the Air Force jet doing t and g behind me. Flew it at 120kts in a 172 almost full throttle, hit da and dumped the speed hit the flaps and landed well before the 1000 ft markers. Would I have done this in hard ifr no way in hell, was it fun as hell to do vfr hell yes. And is 65 knots really a ton of extra speed I believe the 172 I trained in wanted you at 70 knots over the fence one of the 180hp conversions.
 
MAKG1 said:
Yeah, a few things about instrument approaches are quite different from VFR approaches. This is one of them.

Another is that a missed approach is not like a go-around. You're already fast and have minimal or no flaps, so you push the throttle in and start climbing right away. No waiting for the speed to build; it's already there.

In the worst case, you're barely 200 feet off the deck, and you can't see it. You want altitude in a hurry. Unlike doing that on short final VFR, you're still far on the front side of the power curve.
Click to expand...

And to add to the fun, in a missed in the soup or even under the hood, hitting full throttle and climbing risks spacial disorientation, and specifically the feeling like you are tumbling backwards. It happened to me once. I'm glad my CFII was with me.
 
txflyer said:
Sorry, I can't help you there skipper.

I'm usually taxi'd off before the 1000' markers ... ;)
Click to expand...


Heh. Yeah. Can do that too, but it's hard on brakes.

During the Instrument I learned another downside of a STOL kit on a 182.

Dump full flaps from a 90 knot (or faster) approach at DH, with no power on at all, and forcibly push forward to aim for the runway bar, and you'll float all the way to the 1000' marker anyway. Which kinda makes it look like that's what you were shooting for.

It's harder than it looks to lose 50 knots from 200 AGL at essentially the end of the runway and make it look all pretty and "stabilized". A big headwind is much appreciated. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Heh. Yeah. Can do that too, but it's hard on brakes.

During the Instrument I learned another downside of a STOL kit on a 182.

Dump full flaps from a 90 knot (or faster) approach at DH, with no power on at all, and forcibly push forward to aim for the runway bar, and you'll float all the way to the 1000' marker anyway. Which kinda makes it look like that's what you were shooting for.

It's harder than it looks to lose 50 knots from 200 AGL at essentially the end of the runway and make it look all pretty and "stabilized". A big headwind is much appreciated. :)
Click to expand...



Fourty degrees with no power should bring you down pretty quick.

Next time I'm up local, I'll set up on the glideslope and try it and see what happens.
 
txflyer said:
Fourty degrees with no power should bring you down pretty quick.

Next time I'm up local, I'll set up on the glideslope and try it and see what happens.
Click to expand...


It's the flap movement time. Electrics in mine. What are yours?

Right at DH, slap the handle and they take a while to go from 10 to 40. A guess would be five seconds or so. Not huge but ...

In transit, my ailerons droop with the flaps and then come back up some, since it's the Robby kit. All sorts of manhandling while spinning the trim tab to get something that looks "stabilized" out of that mess. Ballooning at the 20-30 range as the ailerons droop and then start back up can be a gotcha if you're right at a real or simulated cloud base.

I suspect loaded heavy, it'd work out nicer. Lightly loaded it's busy. Not overly busy, but it's not pretty.

Arrival at the runway in one piece is never in doubt, but typically I come over the fence at 55-60 VFR in this aircraft and it likes that. I'm usually still pushing 60-65 over the fence from a breakout at DH and the full flaps just "got there", just before that.

It usually works out pretty well if it's all immediate at DH, power off, flaps selected to full, and don't let it pitch up while messing with that range where the droopy ailerons want to balloon it (+0 altitude, no climbing allowed and you probably really want it to still be coming downhill.) and get it all as quick as you can while being deliberate about it. Wait a second or two on any of them, you're going to end up further down the runway than you want to be.

With the stall fences it'll float and float and float in ground effect if you want it to, for quite a distance. Better not be very high when it quits, though... the curve gets real steep there at the end from flying to falling, and even though the stall horn is on, it's still "kinda flying" with a huge sink rate.

I've demoed the power off stall stuff for friends many times at altitude. It'll do the " falling leaf" almost on its own on a no wind day without much if any rudder input. Nose just porpoises and the horn stays on the whole time, with the elevator held full aft and locked there. (I usually wrap both arms around the yoke and give it a bear hug to my chest jokingly to add a little fake drama to it for those who haven't seen it. I'm ready to release it if I'd ever seen a sign of a fall off to one side or any incipient spin signs, but it generally refuses to do it.)

Indicated airspeed during those is from zero indicated to about 40 in the downhill part of the porpoise.

In many ways, while fun, and adding some interesting options, the Robby kit on a 182 messes up some of the well balanced handling of the airframe native to it, in return for ridiculous slowness.

I think I've only landed it "full stall" a handful of times and getting there you have to watch out for how fast you add in that last up elevator at the end, or you're tempting a tail strike. You can't do it too soon or you'll hit the tail, and you can't do it too late or you'll plop on as that drag curve comes up to pull you down.

I should set up some cameras. Been too cheap to buy them over the years, but the knockoffs are finally dropping to where a fleet of them and various mounts wouldn't break the bank.
 
Thanks for all the replies, guys. I helps put in perspective what this thing is, this thing about aiming for the bars.
-Scott V.
 
MAKG1 said:
Yeah, a few things about instrument approaches are quite different from VFR approaches. This is one of them.

Another is that a missed approach is not like a go-around. You're already fast and have minimal or no flaps, so you push the throttle in and start climbing right away. No waiting for the speed to build; it's already there.

In the worst case, you're barely 200 feet off the deck, and you can't see it. You want altitude in a hurry. Unlike doing that on short final VFR, you're still far on the front side of the power curve.
Click to expand...
I'm not doubting you, but I am a bit miffed. It's been more years than I care to recall since SE IFR training, so I will bow to recent knowledge.
With that in mind...

1) I thought the 1,000 markers were a goal for all flights, not just IAP's. We aim for them at all times regardless if it's a visual approach (121 ops).

2) How fast are you flying a final speed vs a missed approach / go around speed?? Seems like they would all be in the ballpark. In a larger airplane it's the same exact maneuver.

Thanks for the clarification..
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
I'm not doubting you, but I am a bit miffed. It's been more years than I care to recall since SE IFR training, so I will bow to recent knowledge.
With that in mind...

1) I thought the 1,000 markers were a goal for all flights, not just IAP's. We aim for them at all times regardless if it's a visual approach (121 ops).

2) How fast are you flying a final speed vs a missed approach / go around speed?? Seems like they would all be in the ballpark. In a larger airplane it's the same exact maneuver.

Thanks for the clarification..
Click to expand...

I'm 65 knots on short final in a Cherokee. But flying an IAP, I'm 90 knots until I see the runway and begin a visual decent. If I never see it, 90 knots is what I'm going missed at vs. 65-70 on a VFR go around.
 
Bonchie said:
I'm 65 knots on short final in a Cherokee. But flying an IAP, I'm 90 knots until I see the runway and begin a visual decent. If I never see it, 90 knots is what I'm going missed at vs. 65-70 on a VFR go around.
Click to expand...

Okay... So let's say you see lights at 200', then runway at 100'. You start adding flaps and slowing at that point? Again, not second guessing, it just seems odd.

Also, if you're VFR at 65 knots, is there a huge need to level and accelerate on a go around? I thought Vx/Vy was right in that ballpark.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify...
 
Kritchlow said:
Okay... So let's say you see lights at 200', then runway at 100'. You start adding flaps and slowing at that point? Again, not second guessing, it just seems odd.
Click to expand...

I do some version of this technique in piston airplanes. At a 200' DH, there's enough time to pull power, get desired flaps in, and get to a slower approach speed.

There's much more time than flying jets, and I like to be relatively fast on an approach (I use ~10 kts inside of the white arc/bar) because it just means more altitude if the prop stops spinning.
 
ScottVal said:
Thanks for all the replies, guys. I helps put in perspective what this thing is, this thing about aiming for the bars.
-Scott V.
Click to expand...

I like using the bars because the centerline dashes give a standardized set of aim points that you can take to any instrument runway. Try aiming for the departure end of the third centerline dash at your final speed. If you're consistently short of the bars, move the aim point down (say the start of the 4th dash). Eventually, you can start factoring headwind component.
 
denverpilot said:
It's the flap movement time. Electrics in mine. What are yours?

Right at DH, slap the handle and they take a while to go from 10 to 40. A guess would be five seconds or so. Not huge but ...

In transit, my ailerons droop with the flaps and then come back up some, since it's the Robby kit. All sorts of manhandling while spinning the trim tab to get something that looks "stabilized" out of that mess. Ballooning at the 20-30 range as the ailerons droop and then start back up can be a gotcha if you're right at a real or simulated cloud base.

I suspect loaded heavy, it'd work out nicer. Lightly loaded it's busy. Not overly busy, but it's not pretty.

Arrival at the runway in one piece is never in doubt, but typically I come over the fence at 55-60 VFR in this aircraft and it likes that. I'm usually still pushing 60-65 over the fence from a breakout at DH and the full flaps just "got there", just before that.

It usually works out pretty well if it's all immediate at DH, power off, flaps selected to full, and don't let it pitch up while messing with that range where the droopy ailerons want to balloon it (+0 altitude, no climbing allowed and you probably really want it to still be coming downhill.) and get it all as quick as you can while being deliberate about it. Wait a second or two on any of them, you're going to end up further down the runway than you want to be.

With the stall fences it'll float and float and float in ground effect if you want it to, for quite a distance. Better not be very high when it quits, though... the curve gets real steep there at the end from flying to falling, and even though the stall horn is on, it's still "kinda flying" with a huge sink rate.

I've demoed the power off stall stuff for friends many times at altitude. It'll do the " falling leaf" almost on its own on a no wind day without much if any rudder input. Nose just porpoises and the horn stays on the whole time, with the elevator held full aft and locked there. (I usually wrap both arms around the yoke and give it a bear hug to my chest jokingly to add a little fake drama to it for those who haven't seen it. I'm ready to release it if I'd ever seen a sign of a fall off to one side or any incipient spin signs, but it generally refuses to do it.)

Indicated airspeed during those is from zero indicated to about 40 in the downhill part of the porpoise.

In many ways, while fun, and adding some interesting options, the Robby kit on a 182 messes up some of the well balanced handling of the airframe native to it, in return for ridiculous slowness.

I think I've only landed it "full stall" a handful of times and getting there you have to watch out for how fast you add in that last up elevator at the end, or you're tempting a tail strike. You can't do it too soon or you'll hit the tail, and you can't do it too late or you'll plop on as that drag curve comes up to pull you down.

I should set up some cameras. Been too cheap to buy them over the years, but the knockoffs are finally dropping to where a fleet of them and various mounts wouldn't break the bank.
Click to expand...



My flaps are manual which I love by the way ...

The MT prop I have makes a difference too. It spins down faster when you pull the throttle making it act like a brake.

Chop the power and yank in fourty degrees on mine and you might get whiplash of the forward kind.... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top