On the numbers

[PHX767]

Something else to consider

On ILS approaches, there is a TCH (threshold crossing height) listed just above the TDZE elevation (on Jepp charts anyway) . On most ILS's it is around 50 feet. That is the height that the GS antenna will be crossing the threshold. Consider that the GS antenna on most airliners is up on the front of the plane. Due to the body angle in final approach configuration, there is a LOT of airplane hanging down below the plane of the antenna. On the 767-300ER, (if I remember the ground school correctly) the clearance between the landing gear and the ground in feet is in the teens when on the GS crossing the threshold, and that is to touchdown 1000-1500 feet down the runway.

So it is a good habit for flying jets later on to fly the GS all the way to touchdown, although a lot of pilots will drift below the GS when they are over the pavement.

It is always appreciated when preceding traffic regardless of size clears the runway quickly. Have had cases where planes will stop on the runway and ask for directions to the FBO. Happened at MIA, had to go around.

 

[JetBlast2000]

Mini,

Maybe you’re being a little over sensitive. Bottom line is safety. As long as the maneuver is not in jeopardy, have at it. When I was teaching, I generally had my students aim for the beginning of the 1000 foot line. If one was not there, then the end of the first strip past the number (mainly for short fields). That way I could tell how exactly far past they landed and if it was PTS. Other than that, you should always have a touchdown point in mind. Builds confidence and marks skill progression. With my advanced students (CFI’s and the like) we would shoot an ILS and do a short field on the numbers with a soft field touchdown. Try that and see how well you control the a/c.

JB2k

 

[walkoshame]

I cant stand when people blind me with their taxi lights, people who give their life story over unicoms, blocking runways with their a/c (runups) so noboby else can enter, even though there is room elswhere, cutting me off in the traffic pattern (dangerously close), the list can go on and on and on,,,,,,so I guess every pilot has their pet peeves, I know I have many.

 

[avbug]

I fly several different jobs, so I see several sides of the same fence. When flying an ILS to BWI or LAX, yes, I'll follow the glideslop all the way down, and land in the touchdown zone. However, I also fly into a lot of smaller fields, frequently, and on these, I very often touch down on the numbers.

You need to look at the type of equipment, the field, and so forth.

An old saw tell us that the three most useless things in aviation are altitude above us, runway behind us, and air in the fuel tanks.

For many of us who learned to fly with that firmly in mind, you'll see us taxi into position by using all of the runway, and I mean all of it. Not just turning onto the runway and positioning along the yellow stripe. Do we need that extra few feet? Maybe not, but it's really quite useless behind us.

Landing on that runway, assuming I can assure safety (wouldn't be doing it if I couldn't), I'll go for the numbers and use all the runway. And I'll roll out full length if I'm not pressed by following traffic...I don't use any more brake than I need to either...also old habits, and a darn good habit.

I do land down the runway with the glideslope, but it always grates on me. I recently flew an owner in his medium turboprop. We came back internationally, and landed long on a runway served by a glideslope. When we got out, he told me the next runway we'd be using, his home runway, was a lot shorter. He asked if I thought that was going to be a problem, considering the length we'd just used. He was surprised that so much runway was consumed, after watching that first thousand feet go by, and then a little more as we landed.

At his home field, considerably shorter, we stopped in about 1,400 feet (which I thought was pretty good, considering the airplane), and he was quite happy with that. I did put it on the numbers, used max reverse, a little light braking, and then let it roll. He had zero confidence issues with the airplane after that.

Do what you need to do according to the flying needs at the time. Given the opportunity, choice and the circumstance, I'll land on the numbers every time.

That runway behind you is awfully wasteful.

 

[urflyingme?!]

People that try to put it exactly on the number every single time are dnagerous. Period. bringing a plane in at 1.05 Vso is stupid. Espcially at an airport on a mesa like mine. A gust of wind from behind or some guy taxiing onto the runway and ur dead.

 

[avbug]

Who said anything about landing at 1.05 Vso?

You think those who can and do land on the numbers are dangerous, do you? This is the voice of experience speaking?

From what mesa do you fly? You go try landing a loaded airplane on a true mesa runway where you have just enough room to get down and stopped, and where the runway is as wide as the landing gear (go try out Sandwash, Utah, some time), then tell me all about what's dangerous and what's not.

Let me guess. You fly out of St. George, UT, or perhaps Sedona, AZ, and think you've learned all there is to learn about flying, right?

 

[KigAir]

The other day, after shooting a partial panel BC (I went full deflection about 7 times..still ended up in front of the runway, but I digress..), my instructor told me to get off at the first taxiway. So I did...and the tires didn't even get any flat spots...but 850ft from threshold to the taxiway isn't that impressive now that I think about it.

Also, using a highspeed taxiway doesn't count.

 

[A Squared]

I'm guessing that all of you "don't land on the numbers" types have never flown into a strip in which the useable surface is shorter than the distance between the threshold and the aiming point on a big runway.

 

[greyhound]

An experienced corporate pilot once told me they land with the least amount of runway possible in order to stay proficient in short field landings.(Falcon 50)
Even on a 10,000 ft. runway.

Like someone pointed out sooner, it's just to stay fresh on them.

And I personally agree.

If you get used to using 3000 ft. or more EVERY single time, you "Will" have trouble when you come in on a truly short field. (In a 172 or similar)

You'll think you're low, fly higher than you should be, and possibly overshoot or go-around.

You will also be afraid to come in slower, maybe making the numbers, but when you flare you'll float all the way to the other side of the mesa or grass.

Don't fall in the trap of believing that if you could do it once, you will be able to do it even if you don't practice it.

Short field landings require a different technique.

Approach slower, and steeper.

Practice makes proficiency!

 

[WizardPilot]

A lot of people at PVU do it all the time, they are full stop on the numbers with 5 guys in the pattern at a uncontrolled airport and taxi about 1/2 or 3/4 mile. It just totally duches things up. I came in yesterday and a guy in front of me decided do to a stop and go with 6 people in the pattern all gettin up in a bunch because guys have to go around because of stop and go's (when they sit on the runway forever, happens a lot) or guys land on the numbers on a 9000ft runway with one taxiway in the middle. Be curtious, land on the numbers when nobody else is there. But don't botch up everyones pattern by being stupid at a busy non-towered airport. Land longer if you have to to have a shorter taxi to the turn off.

 

[minitour]

They aren't saying "don't land on the numbers"...I think they are just commenting on the people who feel the need to do it just to show off.

Yep...I guess that should have been the original post...

oh well

 

[User546]

Mini, did you hear the guy at your airport today that didn't think his nose-wheel was down?

 

[minitour]

Mini, did you hear the guy at your airport today that didn't think his nose-wheel was down?

No...had my stage 3 oral today...smoked him...except on the hydrplaning stuff...I "semi-smoked" him

-mini

 

[urflyingme?!]

Av,
I'm not saying don't land on the numbers. I'm talkning about the guy who stalls his plane in on the threshold everytime, who is flying dangerous for no reason at all. I'm talking about the guy who lands before the umbers. I've flown from some, but not many, small strips(Smaller than St George or Sedona, Like Catalina) and I can appreciate the need to put it down on the correct spot. I admit that I havent flown into the smallest strips or anything of that nature, I'm just saying that it is dangerous, and unneccessary expecially in a training enviroment. Why not aim for the 1000's, when you have 4000+ft In a small(c-150), lower powered aircraft on a hot and gusty day, I just don't see why someone would do that with a Mesa(runway begining less that 75 feet from edge).

The people I think are unsafe are those guys.
I can see slipping in an aircraft and puting it on the threshold exactly at speed should neccesity provide you with a reason(I don't think you should ever touch down above the correct speed) but this is different.

***Edit***
We must have posted at the same time there. I didn't see your earlier post! I wasn't speaking in reference to you, just the dude who thinks he's landing his cessna on a carrier!

 

[urflyingme?!]

9 X square root of tire pressure, DUH!

 

[minitour]

9 X square root of tire pressure, DUH!

lol...how bout the seventy different kinds of hydroplaning LOL

"are there any more? are there any more?" geez

haha

 

[avbug]

Well, again, different aircraft, different types of flying, all call for different methods of doing the same things. I the summer time I fly a large conventional gear airplane, and shoot for the numbers every time. I have ample runway, but putting it behind me is wasteful, and I'd certainly feel foolish if I ever did run out of runway after leaving some behind.

In order to accomplish that, I do approach and flare before the black top begins, such that my main gear touches the numbers for a wheel landing as close to the beginning of the runway as I can do, comfortably. I do this not onlyl with the expectation of getting stopped, but also with dealing with a problem in the event of an emergency. If I need to prolong the rollout, such as I might if I need to get the tailwheel back in the air with a sudden gust or upset, or a runway conflict, or a need for a go-around, I want as much runway out ahead of me as I can get.

I know that going to reverse could be problematic; you can do it in a conventional gear airplane, but I want my tail on the ground first because the rudder goes bye-bye when the reverse comes in. I don't want to rely on brakes, though that's all the steering I've got once the rudder loses effectiveness. The answer is to put the runway in front of me and not behind, let it roll as needed. Life's too short to add problems, and runway ahead of me is a soloution, not a problem.

 

[FracCapt]

An experienced corporate pilot once told me they land with the least amount of runway possible in order to stay proficient in short field landings.(Falcon 50)
Even on a 10,000 ft. runway.

Like someone pointed out sooner, it's just to stay fresh on them.

And I personally agree.

Screw that. Brakes are expensive. Aerodynamic braking isn't. Touchdown, test the brakes, then use aerodynamic braking and T/R's(if available) to slow down. On a 7,000' runway, I don't need brakes until taxiing. If I have T/R's, I can do the same on a 5,000' runway.

 

[Lead Sled]

An experienced corporate pilot once told me they land with the least amount of runway possible in order to stay proficient in short field landings.(Falcon 50) Even on a 10,000 ft. runway.

I consider myself an experienced corporate pilot and I don't "land with the least amount of runway possible" unless it's necessary. Can I plant in on the numbers, jam on the brakes, go into hard reverse, and make the first turnoff? You betcha, but I've got passengers in the back that wouldn't appreciate it. I've got a mechanic that's going to wonder why the brakes don't last as long as they ought to. Whenever we go into an airport where there will be a need to make a landing like that (or a noise abaitment departure like at SMO) we will brief the passengers. I don't fly a bizjet, I fly passengers.

'Sled

 

[User546]

I consider myself an experienced corporate pilot and I don't "land with the least amount of runway possible" unless it's necessary. Can I plant in on the numbers, jam on the brakes, go into hard reverse, and make the first turnoff? You betcha, but I've got passengers in the back that wouldn't appreciate it. I've got a mechanic that's going to wonder why the brakes don't last as long as they ought to. Whenever we go into an airport where there will be a need to make a landing like that (or a noise abaitment departure like at SMO) we will brief the passengers. I don't fly a bizjet, I fly passengers.

Let's all give Sled a hand, that was a great answer!!