Short field technique poll

Does anyone ever fly/practice a short field approach, nose high, on the other side of the

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 53.8%

  • No

    Votes: 25 32.1%

  • Never heard of it.

    Votes: 4 5.1%

  • Are you out of your mind?

    Votes: 5 6.4%

  • I'm calling the FAA on you again.

    Votes: 2 2.6%
  • Total voters
    78
Shepherd

Shepherd

Final Approach
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
5,423
Location
Hopewell Jct, NY
Display Name
Display name:
Shepherd
The "Simulated Short Field" thread got me wondering......

Does anyone here ever fly a short field approach, nose high, on the other side of the power curve all the way to the ground?
I like to practice it, but I find a lot of pilots totally freak out when I do it.
 
Let me rephrase the question to make sure I understand it.

On a short field approach to landing, do I establish the appropriate short field configuration - airspeed, flaps, descent angle - and maintain it until ready to round out and touch down?

Yes.

Edit. Do I care whether I am nose high or nose low in that configuration?

No.
 
Last edited:
Never.
midlifeflyer said:
On a short field approach to landing, do I establish the appropriate short field configuration - airspeed, flaps, descent angle - and maintain it until ready to round out and touch down?

Yes.
Click to expand...
This is what I do.

What’s the advantage of flying it nose high? Not sure I’ve heard of this before?
 
Nose high is what the STOL guys do. Basically the sight picture you get right before a stall but while descending instead of trying to maintain altitude (think falling leaf in a way). Obviously I do not practice it in the Venture but I have in 182's.
 
Ryanb said:
What’s the advantage of flying it nose high? Not sure I’ve heard of this before?
Click to expand...
The advantage is for spot landing with minimal rollout.

It’s essentially how carrier pilots land.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The advantage is for spot landing with minimal rollout.

It’s essentially how carrier pilots land.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. Seems more along the lines of a STOL technique.

Edit: Doh! @Grum.Man already mentioned that.
 
Last edited:
It works well, but is risky of course. If the engine dumps on final, you're done.
 
It’s how I was taught short field.
 
Grum.Man said:
Nose high is what the STOL guys do. Basically the sight picture you get right before a stall but while descending instead of trying to maintain altitude (think falling leaf in a way). Obviously I do not practice it in the Venture but I have in 182's.
Click to expand...
Isn't "nose high" simply what a short field configuration looks like in some aircraft and not in others?

In some aircraft a normal no-flap landing on proper airspeed for that configuration is nose high. I would guess even 1.1 Vso in some airplanes will look nose-low.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Isn't "nose high" simply what a short field configuration looks like in some aircraft and not in others?

In some aircraft a normal no-flap landing on proper airspeed for that configuration is nose high. I would guess even 1.1 Vso in some airplanes will look nose-low.
Click to expand...

No. There is a distinct difference when you transition from the typical 1.3 vso to in some cases an indicated airspeed that is less than stall speed.
 
Grum.Man said:
No. There is a distinct difference when you transition from the typical 1.3 vso to in some cases an indicated airspeed that is less than stall speed.
Click to expand...

I've done it in the 172 a lot more than the Mooney, but pretty much going down final all the way with the stall horn intermittently chirping.
 
My nose gets high on my go arounds at KCDK - that count?
 
I go both ways...




As for the short field approach, I've done it both nose high (power on) and nose low (power off).
 
Grum.Man said:
No. There is a distinct difference when you transition from the typical 1.3 vso to in some cases an indicated airspeed that is less than stall speed.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I understand. So I guess my answer is "no." Never saw the need for it. Shortest runway I've gone into is 1800' near sea level.
 
T Lance and backside of the power curve are words that should not be in the same sentence. So no, I don’t.
 
PA-32-300 the only way to get POH performance for short fields is to hang it on the prop with serious power applied. So yes I’ve done it during the checkout and flight reviews, etc.

-Skip
 
I answered no.

The generally accepted 1.2 Vso has proven adequate for me, and keeps the plane on the “front side” of the power curve. Any slower than that would give little margin over the stall to deal with unexpected gusts or shear.
Plus, if you ever find yourself too low and on the back side of the power curve, even full power might not suffice to make the runway.

No thanks.
 
FastEddieB said:
I answered no.

The generally accepted 1.2 Vso has proven adequate for me, and keeps the plane on the “front side” of the power curve. Any slower than that would give little margin over the stall to deal with unexpected gusts or shear.
Plus, if you ever find yourself too low and on the back side of the power curve, even full power might not suffice to make the runway.

No thanks.
Click to expand...
1.2 Vs should be the back side of the power curve.

Edit: at least, the back side of the dab curve...I forget exactly how power and thrust intertwine in piston engines.
 
Last edited:
Shepherd said:
The "Simulated Short Field" thread got me wondering......

Does anyone here ever fly a short field approach, nose high, on the other side of the power curve all the way to the ground?
I like to practice it, but I find a lot of pilots totally freak out when I do it.
Click to expand...

I follow the manufactures procedure, generally 1.2 Vso, and pick a proper aim point / threshold interval and properly use ground effect to yield pretty close to the performance chart values.
 
I fly Supercubs in the Idaho backcountry so yes I do short field landings all the time. Everybody gets freaked out by a nose high approach but you can see just fine out the sides.
 
No. The LSAs I fly can land very short without coming in on the backside of the power curve. Also, they get kicked around a lot in wind gusts, and my home drome often has gusty conditions and LLWS. I'd hate to be in a slow-flight config, already at high throttle, near stall speed, and then get hit with a wind shear while only one or two hundred feet above the ground.

Bottom line: not necessary in an LSA and also too risky.
 
I fly most of my landings as short field with a high AOA. How high depends on wind, surroundings, CG, etc. The nose high comment generally divides pilots who fly minimum apprach speeds with power off vs power on. There’s a place for both. For most flights I’m higher, steeper, maintaining a flatter attitude, and using moderate power. The AOA is higher than the nose is. To come in flat with nose to the sky and drag it in at high power isn’t useful in most short places with average winds. I do enjoy flying the Cub down a long sandbar at high power-high AOA with only the tailwheel touching as a training exercise, keeping the tailwheel on and the mains off for as long as possible. But my plane is equipped for it.
 
I’ve just never been too inclined to fly my approaches at the back end of the power curve, because it’s just not necessary under normal operations when you have several thousand feet of runway available. If you’re up in the backcountry than that’s a different story, but I rather not be that slow, so close to the ground when I don’t have to be.
 
I do it in the Cub, mostly for fun, but it could be useful in an unfriendly off field emergency landing. In the RV, I do short field approach at the home drome, but not as much with a behind the power curve type.
 
I think its a useful technique if you ever NEED to put a plane in the shortest possible space. I can land a C-172 normally (power off, 1.3 VSO over the fence) and make the 1000' turn off all day long. But if I ever have to put one in 2-300', you bet I'll be nose high and behind the power curve. Also, at that point, I've encountered other links in the accident chain to get there.

It's another tool in the box for unforeseen circumstances. And, yes, I've practiced it. (Though not in a while.)

John
 
Bill Jennings said:
It works well, but is risky of course. If the engine dumps on final, you're done.
Click to expand...
True, dat.
But then again, everything in a plane is a risk.

Half Fast said:
No. The LSAs I fly can land very short without coming in on the backside of the power curve. Also, they get kicked around a lot in wind gusts, and my home drome often has gusty conditions and LLWS. I'd hate to be in a slow-flight config, already at high throttle, near stall speed, and then get hit with a wind shear while only one or two hundred feet above the ground.

Bottom line: not necessary in an LSA and also too risky.
Click to expand...

I used to do this all the time in a Tecnam P-92. You are correct about gusts, etc. LSAs are inherently a little more susceptible to winds.
Everything in any aircraft is based on weighing risks, options and skill level, then get your best return on investment.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Isn't "nose high" simply what a short field configuration looks like in some aircraft and not in others?

In some aircraft a normal no-flap landing on proper airspeed for that configuration is nose high. I would guess even 1.1 Vso in some airplanes will look nose-low.
Click to expand...

Near stall speed attitude is different between different planes, yes. It’s also different in the same plane at different flap settings. Or in the Cub world, very different with stock flaps versus aftermarket flaps, let alone with leading edge slats. VGs will help a little tiny bit with promoting a flatter attitude but many guys don’t get slow enough to recognize it.

For you guys who don’t fly STOL, imagine approaching a power off stall at 1.01 stall speed for whatever flaps you have out. You’re having a hard time maintaining altitude as you’re waiting for the stall and the nose drop, right? Add a little power and it’s easy to maintain altitude. In fact you’ll need to raise the nose to keep from gaining airspeed. But watch the ball or you may get bit, yes? Full control at minimum airspeed, but it’s a fine line. That’s what you see being demonstrated at STOL contests.
 
jsstevens said:
I think its a useful technique if you ever NEED to put a plane in the shortest possible space. I can land a C-172 normally (power off, 1.3 VSO over the fence) and make the 1000' turn off all day long. But if I ever have to put one in 2-300', you bet I'll be nose high and behind the power curve. Also, at that point, I've encountered other links in the accident chain to get there.
Click to expand...
My impression is that trying something at the edge of the performance envelope is not the best strategy for terminating an accident chain after a few links are already in place.
 
midlifeflyer said:
My impression is that trying something at the edge of the performance envelope is not the best strategy for terminating an accident chain after a few links are already in place.
Click to expand...

Quite true, unless it's something you practice regularly.
 
jsstevens said:
I think its a useful technique if you ever NEED to put a plane in the shortest possible space. I can land a C-172 normally (power off, 1.3 VSO over the fence) and make the 1000' turn off all day long. But if I ever have to put one in 2-300', you bet I'll be nose high and behind the power curve. Also, at that point, I've encountered other links in the accident chain to get there.

It's another tool in the box for unforeseen circumstances. And, yes, I've practiced it. (Though not in a while.)

John
Click to expand...

Do you think you can land a 172 in 200-300’ without practicing it? THAT’S an accident set up if there ever was one. To land short demands hitting the threshold precisely. That’s the key to short field technique. That takes practice.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The advantage is for spot landing with minimal rollout.

It’s essentially how carrier pilots land.
Click to expand...

It would seem that a Navy jet undershooting the deck, on the back side of the power curve, would be a bad thing and a reason to avoid the back side of the power curve.
 
Stewartb said:
Do you think you can land a 172 in 200-300’ without practicing it? THAT’S an accident set up if there ever was one. To land short demands hitting the threshold precisely. That’s the key to short field technique. That takes practice.
Click to expand...

Nope. That's why I do practice the technique.
 
jsstevens said:
I think its a useful technique if you ever NEED to put a plane in the shortest possible space. I can land a C-172 normally (power off, 1.3 VSO over the fence) and make the 1000' turn off all day long. But if I ever have to put one in 2-300', you bet I'll be nose high and behind the power curve. Also, at that point, I've encountered other links in the accident chain to get there.

It's another tool in the box for unforeseen circumstances. And, yes, I've practiced it. (Though not in a while.)

John
Click to expand...
I’m struggling to find a situation you’d be forced to land that short while your engine is still useable behind the power curve. There are some, but not enough for me to want to practice it.
 
Salty said:
I’m struggling to find a situation you’d be forced to land that short while your engine is still useable behind the power curve. There are some, but not enough for me to want to practice it.
Click to expand...

Probably not. Bad weather and a precautionary landing? Serious visible oil leak over inhospitable terrain?

But it's just another technique. Be able to make the plane do what you want it to do so if you have to, you can. That's all I'm saying.

Besides, someday I might take up bush flying. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top