Why do pilots land at the thousand foot markers?

Just my thoughts but unless there is a reason I need every foot of runway to stop I’m a middle of the TDZ kinda guy. I used to be a numbers guy. But I’ve learned that I’m not perfect and sometimes crap goes sideways so I figure the middle is a good target.
 
Last edited:
Me? Aim for top of numbers to begin roll out. After holding it off and eventual flare I’m on the markers. I’ve yet to run off the runway or break any runway lights.
 
Salty said:
Well, if I'd been aiming for the 1,000 foot markers instead of the numbers when my engine went out, I might have made the field at least....
Click to expand...

This. Being able to hit the numbers on engine out practice is awesome practice. I try to do that on short approaches if I know the field. But IRL, it's probably better to aim at least a thousand feet down the runway if there is enough room. It's how I do engine out practice now, 1,000 foot markers, stay high until landing is assured, dump in flaps and slip.
 
kicktireslightfires said:
Thanks all.

OK, so if you're landing an airliner, aim for the 1000' fixed distance markers (so you don't drag your big ass through the grass).

If you're landing a GA aircraft, aim for the numbers. (But if you're landing a GA aircraft at night, probably use the VASI/PAPI and aim for the 1000' fixed distance markers to ensure you don't hit anything.)

Do I have that right?
Click to expand...

I only aim for the numbers if I know the airport, meaning I know there is nothing to hit being low before the runway surface. Otherwise I'll aim for the 1,000 foot marker or beyond the numbers until I know landing sooner will be safe.
 
MauleSkinner said:
They had LPV and LNAV IAPs in the 1970s?
Click to expand...
I believe it was added to the reg when GPS came about, it if it didn’t, no one cared much about noise in t the 70 because urban sprawl hadn’t engulf the airports yet.
 
I know it wasn’t. They did add LNAV/VNAV and LPV glide path to the turbine airplane reg, but the glide slope requirement of that one and the visual glide path requirement of the other existed before I started flying in 1980.

The conversation I had with the fed was when it still only referenced ILSs for the turbine airplane reg.
 
Last edited:
What everybody else said. Except, short/obstructed field, I'm working on landing right at the displaced threshold, with an approach angle set to miss the obstruction of course.
 
kicktireslightfires said:
Why do pilots land at the thousand foot markers on a runway? What’s the rationale for not trying to land at the first available opportunity on the runway, which would be the numbers? Why overfly 1,000 feet of usable runway? I understand that the glide slope directs you down to that point, but why?
Click to expand...
I paid my landing fee so will use the entire runway I paid for
 
I us to be a at the numbers guy. A CFI commented to me one time, most of the AK pilots he gives a FR to try to touch down just past the numbers.

With the loss of sight in my right eye, my depth perception is off. Lately I aim for the 1000' mark and normally touch down just before that marker. The last 10 feet of vertical distance is hard to judge with mono vision at least for me.

That said I think I'm in the camp that there is nothing wrong with hitting the 1000' marker, might save your bacon if you loose an engine on short final.
 
I think spamcans that aim for the 1000' markers do so because that is what they were taught at the immense runways they trained at. On a 5000' runway I could land my Warrior 3000' down the runway and perhaps stop by the other 1000' marker.

The important point is to land where you are confident you can make a safe landing. If someone wants to land 1000' down the runway with enough left to spare, then I don't care. It's more important to be able to hit your chosen touchdown spot, then where that spot is.
 
See, and that is why my personal minimum for runway length is 9,000 feet.
 
I put her down at the 1000 marker usually as it’s more convenient for taxi, but still work to keep my landing accurate so I’m not sloppy on short stuff.

BUT the biggest reason I do it is it keeps me much closer to the airport in the event I need to fully glide to that landing and a touch of power isn’t an option. I turn base at the fence not a mile or 6 past the runway.
 
AKBill said:
I us to be a at the numbers guy. A CFI commented to me one time, most of the AK pilots he gives a FR to try to touch down just past the numbers.

With the loss of sight in my right eye, my depth perception is off. Lately I aim for the 1000' mark and normally touch down just before that marker. The last 10 feet of vertical distance is hard to judge with mono vision at least for me.

That said I think I'm in the camp that there is nothing wrong with hitting the 1000' marker, might save your bacon if you loose an engine on short final.
Click to expand...

The chances that the engine will fail when it’s barely above idle, after presumably running normally and not feeding from an empty tank, is almost nonexistent. What’s essential is being able to consistently touch down at your planned point. Shoot for within -0/+100’, and once you’re there 95% of the time tighten it to within 50 feet. Doesn’t matter so much which marker you use so much as you hit it.
 
ateamer said:
The chances that the engine will fail when it’s barely above idle, after presumably running normally and not feeding from an empty tank, is almost nonexistent. What’s essential is being able to consistently touch down at your planned point. Shoot for within -0/+100’, and once you’re there 95% of the time tighten it to within 50 feet. Doesn’t matter so much which marker you use so much as you hit it.
Click to expand...
Well, it accounts for 100% of my engine failures. ;)
 
My initial training was at Meadowlark (L16) with a 2100’x35’ runway with obstacles at both ends. I can tell you that landing at the 1000’ mark was not recommended. I saw a few screwups by pilots used to landing at SNA or LGB that used L16 as their practice place for short field work. Switching to LGB to finish off my private felt like cheating after Meadowlark.
 
ateamer said:
The chances that the engine will fail when it’s barely above idle, after presumably running normally and not feeding from an empty tank, is almost nonexistent.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ; all it takes is for the idle speed to be set a bit too low, or a bit of crud in the idle circuit.
 
Dana said:
I beg to differ; all it takes is for the idle speed to be set a bit too low, or a bit of crud in the idle circuit.
Click to expand...
That may be all it takes, but what are the chances that will happen?
 
I understand it’s not a high likelihood but when I need 400 ft out of 4200 I only see safety margin increased by aiming for 1000. Why come up short IF it did happen…

I have a friend who barely glided in, so they can quit, I can’t stand 747 patterns dragging her in for miles relying on that engine so low w few good options regularly.

I still aim for a precise spot so I’m not a floater so when 4200 isn’t there I’m not sloppy.

plus for me the grass on the side of the runway is smoothest at the 1000 marker at home- saves the tires :) Where I touch down on the grass I’m almost always coming to taxi speed as I get to the cross grass strip and taxi on out.
 
Dana said:
I beg to differ; all it takes is for the idle speed to be set a bit too low, or a bit of crud in the idle circuit.
Click to expand...
Or an inadequate carb heat system. Or complacency about carb ice in a Piper.
 
Bill said:
Both ends of our home runway are built up from the surrounding area, and the runway is in a narrow valley with tree lined ridges down each side.

On a benign day I shoot for and land on the numbers, no sweat. But when the wind is whipping, we get all kinds of strange rotors and other effects and the wise pilot aims for the 1000ft markers, or even a little further on down if it's really whipping. Match the landing to the conditions.
Click to expand...

That's why I put that I land long at home, and Catalina etc. We get huge crosswinds, but most of the accident aircraft faced a 20-35 knot straight down the runway wind. The numbers at my field are close to the Mesa edge so the wind flows over it like a waterfall, catching unknowing pilots with a HUGE downdraft right at the numbers that TOGA thrust might not arrest ...
 
danhagan said:
That's why I put that I land long at home, and Catalina etc. We get huge crosswinds, but most of the accident aircraft faced a 20-35 knot straight down the runway wind. The numbers at my field are close to the Mesa edge so the wind flows over it like a waterfall, catching unknowing pilots with a HUGE downdraft right at the numbers that TOGA thrust might not arrest ...
Click to expand...
I had that happen in Thermopolis, WY…ended up 15 feet above the river, maybe 150 feet below the airport.

second time around I touched down midfield and was fine.

edit…looks like they’ve moved the airport since then. Maybe I wasn’t the only one.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
When you're flying an airplane that's capable of operating out of a 2,000' strip, consider that the 7,000'+ long runways at larger airports were not designed for your airplane's performance capabilities. If you land on them like you'd land on a 2,000' runway, chances are you'll end up somewhere other than where the controller was expecting you to be. In many cases, the taxiways won't be setup to accommodate such an early runway exit and you'll have to wait for opposite direction traffic or all runway exits will be reverse high-speeds intended for aircraft landing in the opposite direction.

Nothing wrong with landing a small/slow GA airplane short but be aware of how that may impact the ground ops and when a longer landing may be more efficient. In those cases, pick a new point in the touchdown zone to use as the "end of the runway" target to keep your skills sharp.
 
Larry in TN said:
When you're flying an airplane that's capable of operating out of a 2,000' strip, consider that the 7,000'+ long runways at larger airports were not designed for your airplane's performance capabilities. If you land on them like you'd land on a 2,000' runway, chances are you'll end up somewhere other than where the controller was expecting you to be. In many cases, the taxiways won't be setup to accommodate such an early runway exit and you'll have to wait for opposite direction traffic or all runway exits will be reverse high-speeds intended for aircraft landing in the opposite direction.

Nothing wrong with landing a small/slow GA airplane short but be aware of how that may impact the ground ops and when a longer landing may be more efficient. In those cases, pick a new point in the touchdown zone to use as the "end of the runway" target to keep your skills sharp.
Click to expand...
Landing my Maule at KMSP once, and the ground controller couldn’t find me…I had to make an early turnoff for a 747 behind me, and the controller wasn’t looking at that end of the runway.

Another time, I was landing behind a departing CRJ that was a little pokey getting going. I was over the numbers and Tower said, “Maule 026, continue…expect landing clearance in 3000 feet.”
 
My home field is 2444 feet, so I was taught to use the numbers as my aim point. I was also taught to flare, so that doesn't mean touching down on them.

The runway does not have thousand-foot markers.
 
Dana said:
I beg to differ; all it takes is for the idle speed to be set a bit too low, or a bit of crud in the idle circuit.
Click to expand...

Isn't that why we pull to idle during run-up to make sure it doesn't quit? I noticed that some pilots pull to idle for about one second during run-up. I think that's foolhardy. I like to let it sit there at idle for at least 5 to 10 seconds just to confirm that when I'm coming in over the threshold pulled to idle that the engine isn't going to quit. It's no guarantee it won't, but if I just tested it before the flight, it's a very good chance it will be fine.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Here's a little graphic from the 777 flight manual with some numbers. As you can see, it isn't recommended to use a 2-bar VASI for us, and honestly, I can't remember the last time I saw a VASI at work. It's almost all PAPI everywhere I go.

View attachment 106565
Click to expand...

THANK YOU! I figured out the answer to my question from this graphic alone. What I take away from it is:

The 1,000' fixed distance markers are just an aiming point for airliners. And when they aim for the 1,000' fixed distance markers, their main gear -- which is quite below them and far behind them -- is going to touchdown right around the 500' marker (500' to 700'). And because everyone is not perfect all the time, it is much better to touch down at ~500' into the runway and have that buffer rather than try to have everyone being absolutely perfect every time and touchdown right at the threshold. This was done for safety purposes to create a buffer for inaccuracy.

Best I can ascertain, the 1000' fixed distance markers are only there for heavy metal and are a standard for safety so they don't ever drag their big ass through the grass. For small GA aircraft, land at the numbers if it's a smaller runway (4000' or less -- which I don't think will have 1000' fixed distance markers to begin with); if it's a big runway (5000'+ -- which will have 1000' fixed distance markets + high speed taxi exits), land at the 1000' fixed distance markers so you can taxi off the runway faster (and make your base turn sooner, and stay closer in to the airport as a result).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top