On the numbers

[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!!