Landing Long (on purpose)!

[digits_]

Why would you even have to ask for a long landing? Unless you get cleared to land with a hold short instruction of RWY 13/31, you can land at the numbers of 36 if you manage to not go off the end of the runway.

I don't know how things run normally at YWG, but at many airports the difference between aiming for and making the first available exit versus the third one can easily mean the airliner behind you going around. It can also mean the guy who is waiting to take-off now has to wait for the lander behind you, and maybe the 2 or 3 after that, when there was a gap if had you made the first exit. Long landings can often be accommodated but if it is not specifically approved (or it's a local procedure that everyone lands long), you should be aiming to make the first possible exit.

Usually not an issue in Winnipeg. And if it is, ATC tells you. When you want to make a long landing, you are usually higher on the approach as well. Being at 500 ft over the treshold for example, can already be a clue to ATC you won't make the first exit.

[ahramin]

I figure ATC will let me know if they need me to exit at a particular place or time.

For those worried about weekend warriors causing an airliner to go around, it's called HIRO.

4.4.10 High Intensity Runway Operations (HIRO)
Several of Canada’s airports rank among North America’s busiest in total aircraft movements. HIRO, as a concept, have evolved from procedures developed by high density terminals in North America and Europe. It is intended to increase operational efficiency and maximize the capacity at those airports where it is employed through the use of disciplined procedures applied by both pilots and air traffic controllers. HIRO is intended to minimize the occurrence of overshoots that result from slow-rolling and/or slow-clearing aircraft and offers the prospective of reducing delays overall, both on the ground and in the air. In its fullest application, HIRO enables ATC to apply minimum spacing to aircraft on final approach to achieve maximum runway utilization.

The tactical objective of HIRO is to minimize runway occupancy times (ROT) for both arriving and departing aircraft, consistent with both safety and passenger comfort. Effective participation in HIRO results when the pilot of an arriving aircraft exits the runway expeditiously, allowing the following arriving aircraft to cross the threshold with a minimum time interval. In the case of an arrival and a subsequent departure, the arriving pilot clears the runway in a minimum ROT, permitting a departure before the next arrival crosses the threshold. The air traffic controller’s objective in HIRO is to optimize approach spacing. This can be best achieved when pilots reach and adhere to assigned speeds as soon as practicable.

Effective participation in HIRO is achieved by satisfying the following key elements.

Key elements for arrivals:
• The pilot’s objective should be to achieve minimum ROT, within the normally accepted landing and braking performance of the aircraft, by targeting the earliestsuitable exit point and applying the right deceleration rate so that the aircraft leaves the runway as expeditiously as possible at the nominated exit.
• The expected runway exit point to achieve minimum ROT should be nominated during approach briefing. It is better, in terms of ROT, to select an exit you know you can make, rather than choose an earlier one, miss it, and then roll slowly to the next available exit.
• Upon landing, pilots should exit the runway
without delay.
High-speed exits have specific maximum design speeds. These speeds may be available through the appropriate airport authority. Key elements for departures:
• On receipt of a line-up clearance, pilots should ensure that they are able to line up on the runway as soon as the preceding aircraft has commenced its takeoff roll.
• ATC will expect aircraft to enter the runway at a suitable angle to quickly line-up on the centreline and, when possible, continue in to a rolling takeoff when cleared. Pilots should ensure that they are able to commence the takeoff roll immediately when a takeoff clearance is issued.
• Aircraft that need to enter the runway at right angles, to backtrack, or to use the full length of the runway will require extra time on the runway. Therefore, pilots should notify ATC before arriving at the holding area so that the controller can re-sequence departures to provide the extra time.
• Cockpit checks should be completed prior to line-up, and any checks requiring completion on the runway should be kept to a minimum. If extra time is required on the runway, ATC should be informed before the aircraft arrives at the holding area so that the controller can re-sequence departures to provide the extra time.

If HIRO are in effect, it will be advertised on the ATIS. For a bonus question though, am I allowed to backtrack a towered runway without a clearance? Or a non towered one without announcing it?

[A346Dude]

I figure ATC will let me know if they need me to exit at a particular place or time.

Not a good assumption. You should be trying to get off the runway ASAP, i.e. at the first available exit, unless otherwise approved. ATC doesn't and shouldn't have to tell everyone to exit the first available with every landing clearance. Doesn't matter if HIRO is on the ATIS (it never is at my airport). You could be #1 in a bash of 5 planes, and everyone behind you has to wait an extra minute for departure (or more, if the arrivals are tightly stacked) if you miss the first practical exit. Or the guy in tight behind you wanting a touch and go gets a go around instead, which is a fine way to waste a circuit.

There's no way to be sure if your long landing will make a difference unless you request it. I see it every day, long landings at inopportune times reduce the efficiency of the airport.

[ahramin]

Do you have a reference for that A346dude?

[photofly]

Usually not an issue in Winnipeg. And if it is, ATC tells you. When you want to make a long landing, you are usually higher on the approach as well. Being at 500 ft over the treshold for example, can already be a clue to ATC you won't make the first exit.

it’s a bit bloody late by the time you’re over the threshold, and it’s not really fair to make ATC guess your intentions by an assessment of your approach.

[TT1900]

Just tell them where you're parking and what you'd like to do. On the off chance they don't permit landing long there is a valid reason. I've always found ATC in YWG to be very proactive and accommodating.

ATC have a job to do as well; if you make their life easier they normally return the favour.

[A346Dude]

Do you have a reference for that A346dude?

Unfortunately I do not, all I have is my experience watching it happen. A long landing may save you 1 minute of taxiing, but if it occurs at the wrong time and costs 3 planes waiting for departure 1 minute each, it's a net loss for the airport.

As others have already said, if you want a long landing just ask. If it can be accommodated without unduly affecting the other users, it will be approved. I'm sure there are exceptions across the country where due to a particular configuration (the first available exit is a common intersection departure point for example), long landings are the norm and are expected.

[digits_]

I'm curious what whould happen if they don't approve a long landing. How much runway are you allowed to use in that case? How many seconds can you stay on the runway? Where do you have to touch down? As far as I know, "long landing" isn't defined anywhere. Let's say they don't approve a long landing, you touch down 60% down the runway and come to a stop at the end of the runway. Which CAR did you violate?

Another thing to consider: a "long landing" in a 172 could use up less runway than a "short landing" in a 737.

[photofly]

If you ask to land long, and are denied, and do it anyway, you'll probably get told to pull up and go around because you're not fitting in with whatever the ATCO has planned.

That's the case whether your disapproved long landing is deliberate or just plain incompetent.
ATC doesn't know or care about the difference.

And if you're told to pull up and go around and fail to obey then there is a regulation against that.

Regarding the difference between the expected landing roll of a 737 and a 172: most ATCOs are competent enough to plan for the difference beginning when they find out which you are. Unless you can switch aircraft type over the threshold they already have figured out what a "normal" landing for you is, and where they might expect you to exit.

[CpnCrunch]

Do you have a reference for that A346dude?

Ask ATC and they'll confirm this. At a tower tour at YYJ a few years ago they specifically told us they expect pilots to ask if they want to land long, as otherwise it could screw up their plans. They also expect us to exit at the first taxiway we're able to exit on, and ask permission if exiting on another runway.

[lhalliday]

I'm curious what whould happen if they don't approve a long landing. How much runway are you allowed to use in that case? How many seconds can you stay on the runway? Where do you have to touch down? As far as I know, "long landing" isn't defined anywhere. Let's say they don't approve a long landing, you touch down 60% down the runway and come to a stop at the end of the runway. Which CAR did you violate?

I've gotten growled at by Abbotsford Tower "minimum delay!!!" while floating along 07 (9600 feet) in ground effect. YMMV.

...laura

[Beefitarian]

So OP, did you make the flight? If so what happened?

I am enjoying the discussion and it makes me understand a bit of why they chased all the 172s out of YYC. People flying an approach at 65KIAS trying to land on the numbers, then taxiing along the runway at a walking speed?

11000' of runway and I would plan to be on approach pretty fast until maybe a half mile out on final. Then I'm slowing down before ground effect, typically aiming for the second set of the double stripy things. Exiting first taxiway once I'm touched down at a reasonable speed to turn. Plan to get out of the way if using one of those high speed exits since the faster guys behind might need it.

Sure this is just me wistfully reminiscing about something I would do last century but. I got along great with the big planes at the big airports.

I tried to fit in. Stay out of the way, follow ATC instructions, inform them right away if "Unable.", keep my speed up, get down and off the landing surface as quickly as I can. I also recall tower suggesting a few times, "You may want to land a bit long if you are planning to go to xxxxx."

Last month at Springbank, I ended up being too far along and too fast to exit the taxi way I intended to use because I am dreadfully out of practice only flying a couple of times a year. Fortunately I'm still capable of knowing I would never try to turn that fast on wheels and let it go by. I would have ended up going further if I was solo. I had finally slowed down without brakes and the instructor quickly asked if we could exit onto the other runway.

I'm not proud of my lack of currency and of course YBW is a training airport but point being no one was too fussed about things going wrong for me on that one.

I certainly would want to be much more current before going back somewhere busier.

[CpnCrunch]

What about taking off long? A few days ago I did a high speed taxi down the runway for a few thousand feet at YYJ before taking off in a bugsmasher, without telling ATC. But in the circumstances, it was the only reasonable option...

[youhavecontrol]

I fly at a busy controlled airport all the time. I always state my intension if planning to do a long landing because it's abnormal and good airmanship says "nofity them" Sometimes ATC has a particular taxiway they are expecting you to take. The idea that "you are cleared to land on the whole runway, so just land wherever you want" is ridiculous when you are in a small aircraft with a slow approach speed. I've been asked to land short, for the nearest taxiway to get off in time for a large aircraft behind me, and other times, asked to land long to clear the intersection where departing aircraft were waiting for me.
At my home airport, our controllers request that we say our intensions for long landing every time because when someone faster is behind you and you're floating down the runway for no good reason, Tower can't clear the next aircraft to land until you are wheels-down with taxi instructions. They can get pretty pissed-off waiting for you to finally touch-down.

[co-joe]

I always consider it an airmainship thing. If I plan to do anything other than a 3 degree landing in the TDZ markings I'll let tower know on initial call with the expression "with you for 16 long, or with you for 16 short". This prompts the tower controller to let you know if that works.

A great technique for a long landing (in VMC) is to fly the glide slope 2 dots high. This way you still meet all but one of the "stable approach criteria" maximizing safety and efficiency. It lands you a good 400' long. From there in a light single a "hover taxi" is usually acceptable. If you tell tower that you might even get a good laugh out of them.

That said, both are strictly prohibited by my employer and would result in a tersely worded email...

[digits_]

with you

Whoever started using those words over the radio deserves some unpleasantness in his life.

We got rid of the full "ACTPA", let's kill this one next.