On the numbers

[comander]

I think atc's will give you a hard time if u land in the middle or at the end of a rwy , I guess it afects their sincronization. besides it might be more safe to use the touch down zone as ure supposed 2.

 

[JAFI]

Spot landing for proficency is a good thing. Landing on the numbers is fine if you don't mess up and land before the threshold. Then it is an "off airport" landing and you may leave the gear at the threshold. Being able to land on a short (un-improved) runway and using the entire runway is fine and important in the bush. Pretending to be a bush pilot by landing at the threshold of a 7000' runway may not be the safest thing to do.
My (safety) recommendation is to pick a spot (in the landing zone) for spot landing practice. Get some practice landing on a grass strip, in a tail dragger if you can.

The yearly accident data per pilot flight hours is interesting. As I recall, up to about 200 hours, very few accidents. From 200 to 800 hours the accident rate climbs steeply. From 1000 hours to about 5000 hours it goes down again. From 5000 to 10000 hours the rate goes up some then down again over 10000 hours. I get the feeling that this is because some pilots are feeling their oats after some experience and try to streach their ability and get into trouble. I will try to find the yearly NTSB accident report to post your your review.

For end of the runway landing practice, try picking a spot a little down the runway. you will can still be proficent and add a little safety margin to your practice.

JAFI

edit --- I found the web site for your review:

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/ARG0401.pdf

The last yearly review I looked at and the numbers in the above post was for about 1996. The 2000 numbers show some differences. See page 24 to about 28.

 

[Mmmmmm Burritos]

Land on the numbers, ha!! I've flown planes where I can land and be able to STOP by the numbers

And no I didn't land in the displaced threshold, and I needed at least 15 kts of headwind, but I've done it a few times (and got one on video).

Of course, no paying passengers and when you land at 30kts ground speed, you're not too worried about smoking the brakes!

This was on an instrument runway with threshold markings before the numbers (but no runway lights sticking up across the end), so I figure 150ft from grass to numbers is about right.

 

[nosehair]

Okay...maybe I'm missing the point here,

Yeah, it's really hard to see when it's on top of your head

What gives? Someone PLEASE explain this fascination to me...it doesn't impress me at all.

-mini

All those flights you are talking about are training flights, right? Not passenger flights? So every time a training flight lands, it is always a practice-some-kind-of landing.

I agree that shooting for the numbers EVERY time is not good, but shooting for a specific spot EVERY time is a good thing. "Land me up there at the stripe just before the thousand foot marker."..."Land me at a spot that you can make the third turn-off with minimum landing roll"...and so on...

NEVER allow the airplane to just land wherever it wants to. You can do that when you retire.

 

[Fly_Chick]

If coming in on an instrument approach, remember that to descend below DH or MDA the aircraft has to be continuosly in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers. FAR 91.175 (c) (1)

An MDA of 800' at 0.5 DME from the threshold does not necessarily put one in a position to land on the thousand foot markers of the runway at a normal descend rate (ex - 700 fpm - 90 kts) using normal maneuvers. See KORL VOR/DME RWY 7.

Any opinions on this?

 

[minitour]

Any opinions on this?

Alter the descent rate to 400-500fpm (or whatever works) or don't descend from MDA until the appropriate time....unless you're comfy with that descent rate and where it places you on the runway. I personally just don't like coming through clouds and crap and then chancing losing the engine short final and taking out some approach lights because I'm shooting for the numbers.

-mini

 

[c208fr8dawg]

vector4fun; you wouldnt be talking about the 172 on 17L at Aus would you;

 

[Vector4fun]

vector4fun; you wouldnt be talking about the 172 on 17L at Aus would you;

Errr, Possibly!?

I wasn't there when it happened, just heard about it. Why do you ask?

 

[c208fr8dawg]

i was there for that one,i'm one of your nightly caravan guys

 

[Vector4fun]

Ahhhh. The BWD guy, the SJT guy, the FTW guy, or the VCT guy?