Picking a landing point for the presolo student

[Big Pistons Forever]

Cat Driver is as usual flaming me, after hijacking a post about a guy who wanted to buy a Piper Pacer. One of his points concerned another thread(in retrospect a very ill advised attempt at a light hearted remark by me), when I commented on a landing demonstration to a presolo student and described a touchdown on the 1000ft markers. As it turned out all my instructing has been at airports with 5000 ft runways and from the beginning I told the student to plan his approach such that the touchdown occurred om the 1000 ft markers The reason I did this was if he/she screwed up one of their early solo flights and got a bit low they would not mow the approach lights. When I got into the short field exercises I then introduced aiming for the approach end of the runway.
The bottom line I tried to reinforce was that the touchdown occurs not when the airplane decided to stop flying but at a point of the runway of their choosing. For CPL students to mix things up I sometimes ask for a student to land in the middle of the runway or in the last third. I also made sure all my students did short field landings on actual short fields. The short field graduation exercise was a landing to a full stop at a nearby field with a 1600 ft runway. I expected them to be stopped by the half way point with only moderate braking.

Any way I am interested in hearing the experiences from instructors who teach end of the runway touchdowns from the beginning of the PPL, especially those who's home field is a short strip.

[200hr Wonder]

I told the student to plan his approach such that the touchdown occurred om the 1000 ft markers

I always make a point of having students choose the touch down point. 1000' markers are great for new students, easy to see though that is where the damn VASI or PAPI have you touchdown. I hate training at Springbank where the things are on more or less all the flippin time!

For CPL students to mix things up I sometimes ask for a student to land in the middle of the runway or in the last third.

Why on earth would you want to leave 2/3 of the runway behind you? Or even 1/2?!?!? Break failure, carb ice on a Touch and Go just to name two reasons why this is a bad idea! New at YYC on 16/34 with 12,000+ feet of runway, sure the last half is fine because I can land and roll to a complete dead stop in 6000' of runway in most trainers without breaks. If you can't do that why leave most of your safety night behind you? Runway behind you is of zero use. The same argument applies to intersection departures in a single. Heck I use to like to take off 34 at YYC, I knew I could take off and be through about 500', loose my engine and still stop by the end of the darn thing!

I also made sure all my students did short field landings on actual short fields. The short field graduation exercise was a landing to a full stop at a nearby field with a 1600 ft runway. I expected them to be stopped by the half way point with only moderate braking.

1600' is a short field? I did ab-initio training from a field that long, as in every flight. We did not use short field till well into training. Most people have no idea what a real short field is like. Fort Langley was great till they went and ruined it with concrete. It was short, it was grass and there are tress at the end. That was not even all that short! Short should not even be called that until you start having to worry about weight, density altitude, and your calculations matter in the decision to go or not! Now as an instructor I did not get to do it that often.

[tonyhunt]

Cat Driver is as usual flaming me, after hijacking a post about a guy who wanted to buy a Piper Pacer. One of his points concerned another thread(in retrospect a very ill advised attempt at a light hearted remark by me), when I commented on a landing demonstration to a presolo student and described a touchdown on the 1000ft markers.

No offense, but your first post really did sound silly. I didn't think you were flamed, Cat Driver was pointing out the obvious.

.... The reason I did this was ....

This very detailed justification doesn't make your case sound any better. What was the point of teaching someone to overfly 1000' of runway in a VFR trainer, let alone aim for the last half/third of the runway?

Any way I am interested in hearing the experiences from instructors who teach end of the runway touchdowns from the beginning of the PPL, especially those who's home field is a short strip

I was always taught to aim for the numbers (at the near end of the runway!). That is how I teach it. I was asked once to do four stop and goes from 50' on one pass of a 9,000' runway. When I questioned whether it could be done, the instructor demonstrated six.

[costermonger]

My take on aiming further down the runway is this: they're probably going to end up low on approach while you're with them, and being too low over the grass makes a bit bigger impression than being too low over that first 1000ft of runway (at least it's worked for me). The goal is to make them understand the importance of getting the airplane down where they had planned on doing so, and having the option of coming down short (which is what that first thousand really is) gives them the chance to just land the plane where it wants to go, rather than where they want to put it.

My $0.02. I'm sure somebody disagrees.

[Invertago]

If you must practice short field technique at an airport with a long runway, tell the student to land and be able to exit on such and such a taxi way with out back tracking. It gives them a tangible goal plus the reward of less taxi time for the next take off... just a minor carrot. Duncan is a great airstrip Bigpistons, I'd take all my guys out their for short field work rather then hang around Victoria with the giant runways, the short commute time will be saved in better and more frequent practice on a realistic short field. If 1600 gets to be too long, take a full tank of gas and try it out.

[Hedley]

Aim to touch down on the numbers. Don't aim for the
start of the runway - a tiny bit of loss-of-headwind shear
and they're in the gravel, because they won't react fast
enough with power to recover the lost airspeed.

Burning up the first 1000 feet of pavement is not a good
habit to develop. It's ok when the student is first learning
to land, but he should improve as he practices.

Main thing about avoiding long landings is airspeed control.

Kinetic energy, which must be dissipated, is a function of
the SQUARE of the airspeed. Carrying an extra 20 mph
(or even 10 mph) is another common bad habit that
students should work at improving as they practice.

Like large circuits. As time goes by, the circuit size should
shrink, because a smaller circuit is objectively safer than
a big one.

[AntiNakedMan]

being too low over the grass makes a bit bigger impression than being too low over that first 1000ft of runway.

I think it is an important impression too make ----> "if you mess this up, things will go badly." However, if you need to give a student a safety net of 1000 feet of pavement because they are too dense to understand that touching down before the runway can cause serious problems, maybe you should rethink your student selection.

[Airtids]

I'm with Hedley here. Go for the numbers.

As for specified touchdown points for training, that's one of the things float flying is great for: No worries about chewing up valuable runway when you're on a 100 mile long lake! As for doing it at an airport, I see no problem with it provided your intended touchdown point leaves enough runway remaining from which to do a normal takeoff.

Really, this is all about being able to adjust your 'point of zero movement'.

[Big Pistons Forever]

200hr wonder: if you do not consider 1600ft a short field for a C172 what would you consider meeting your definition of short field? (I understand that approach and departure obstructon will potentially affect the defintion)

I also think you are a bit hard over in your comments regarding landing down the runway. Remember I said this was for CPL students. Operations at lots of busy airports expect mid runway landings and or there are operational reason which may make this advantagous. I would expect this to be in every commercial pilots bag of tricks. It goes to my feeling that these sort of small exercises make the CPL course more relavent to the reality of commercial ops without getting in the way of doing the TC mandated exercises which you need to pass the flight test. BTW I also at some point in the course want to see the student fly at 110 kts to very short final and then smoothly de accelarate to a normal landing.


Airtids: I think you have identified an important point. The touchdown point (which ever specific point you use) should be established well back on final. That is what I looked for in my students. A touchdown on the 1000 ft markers in which the student was low and then dragged the airplane to the touch down point is no more acceptable than if he/she did that to land on the end of the runway. Similarly chop and drop approaches (usually involving touchdowns with excessive speed) are also usually a result of a poorly flown circuit or at least a poorly judged final approach. I want to see a stable
attitude and little to no throttle movement from 500 ft to the flare. As to whether to use the 1000ft marker or numbers for teaching landing for presolo students the consensus seems to be favoring the numbers so far. I guess for me I percieve the advantage of giving very low time pilots extra margin exceeds the advantages using the numbers allthough I would not want imply that this method is is not safe and effective.

[AuxBatOn]

BPF, there is extra margin and there is... EXTRA MARGIN. 1000 feet is a LOT. If you student aims for 1000 ft markers and touches down on the threshold lines, he has more serious issues and SHOULD NOT be sent solo. Aiming for the numbers just gives you more margin in case something goes bad an you need the runway IN FRONT. During ALL of my training, the only time I aimed for the 1000' marker is on a precision approach that you break out near minimum where aiming for the numbers at that time destabilized my approach so much that I can't really make it safe and effective (ie: duck under). In that case, I keep the 3 degree glide path to the touch down.

Remember, 3 useless things in aviation

-Fuel in the Bowser
-Altitude above you
-Runway behind you

AuxBatOn

[200hr Wonder]

200hr wonder: if you do not consider 1600ft a short field for a C172 what would you consider meeting your definition of short field? (I understand that approach and departure obstructon will potentially affect the defintion)

From my previous post:

Short should not even be called that until you start having to worry about weight, density altitude, and your calculations matter in the decision to go or not!

Operations at lots of busy airports expect mid runway landings and or there are operational reason which may make this advantagous.

Most of the time it is OPs that expect it and how often has it ended up with a plane in the approach lights to save a few minutes taxing? Yes a student should be able to choose to land at any point down the runway. Choosing it half way down for no other reason than having it half way down is just plain dangerous.

One of the cardinal rules I like to teach: If you can't give me a really good reason for doing something DON'T DO IT! Saying to a student OK, touch down on the first center line after the numbers is more effective than saying OK touch down halfway how?

[square]

Yes 1600 is a short field. You have your students land on the numbers every time, well good for you, you're landing with as much runway as possible and you're as safe as possible. That doesn't mean your students are learning what they should. Yes when a student gets licensed and goes to fly on his own he ought to be able to land on the numbers, but he won't do it every time, nor should he do it every time. If he's landing behind a jet do you suggest he fly below the wake turbulence and touchdown before the jet did? If you're thinking about it, the answer is in the PSTAR for you. So he should land long, and wouldn't it be nice if he'd done that before and know what it looks like, but in theory it's all the same so who needs to practice it, right? And you know what else? He will botch approaches. Yes I'm sure you told him there's nothing wrong with overshooting. But he will try to save them anyway, like everyone does. So should he have some experience in judging how far down the runway is too far, or should he guess? In theory he should know his exact landing distance for his weight and DA though and count how much runway he's used up, so who needs to actually practice it.

[C23flyer]

If he's landing behind a jet do you suggest he fly below the wake turbulence and touchdown before the jet did?

While I know the parameters for wake turbulence, this is a good point. Read about it, but never really have learned it practically. As an aside, how frequently will a small plane be required to land while there is WT around the runway? Does ATC account for WT when spacing on final, especially for the little guys...I know the PIC should be asking for it, but just wondering.

[AuxBatOn]

35

Yes 1600 is a short field. You have your students land on the numbers every time, well good for you, you're landing with as much runway as possible and you're as safe as possible. That doesn't mean your students are learning what they should. Yes when a student gets licensed and goes to fly on his own he ought to be able to land on the numbers, but he won't do it every time, nor should he do it every time. If he's landing behind a jet do you suggest he fly below the wake turbulence and touchdown before the jet did? If you're thinking about it, the answer is in the PSTAR for you. So he should land long, and wouldn't it be nice if he'd done that before and know what it looks like, but in theory it's all the same so who needs to practice it, right? And you know what else? He will botch approaches. Yes I'm sure you told him there's nothing wrong with overshooting. But he will try to save them anyway, like everyone does. So should he have some experience in judging how far down the runway is too far, or should he guess? In theory he should know his exact landing distance for his weight and DA though and count how much runway he's used up, so who needs to actually practice it.

I agree with you square, but most of the time, your aimpoint will be the numbers. Your training should be representative of what you will do in "real" life. You want to give your student scenarios? Go ahead, see what he does (ie: Okay, a big jet just landed on the numbers. Bring me to a safe landing). Then HE will have to take the decision to land longer. It won't be as artificial as telling him to land long. If your student can land on the numbers every time, he will be able to shift his aimpoint further down the runway.

AuxBatOn

[Big Pistons Forever]

200hr wonder: if you do not consider 1600ft a short field for a C172 what would you consider meeting your definition of short field? (I understand that approach and departure obstructon will potentially affect the defintion)

From my previous post:

Short should not even be called that until you start having to worry about weight, density altitude, and your calculations matter in the decision to go or not!

Operations at lots of busy airports expect mid runway landings and or there are operational reason which may make this advantagous.

Most of the time it is OPs that expect it and how often has it ended up with a plane in the approach lights to save a few minutes taxing? Yes a student should be able to choose to land at any point down the runway. Choosing it half way down for no other reason than having it half way down is just plain dangerous.

One of the cardinal rules I like to teach: If you can't give me a really good reason for doing something DON'T DO IT! Saying to a student OK, touch down on the first center line after the numbers is more effective than saying OK touch down halfway how?

When you start flying the line it is important that new commercial pilots understand that the airplane they are sitting in is not there for their flying pleasure it is simply a tool. If operated efficently than it will be more productive and therefore make more money for the operator and ultimately benifit you. This is an important point which I do not think ever gets mentioned in commecial training.

I mentioned operational considerations; a good example is a 5000ft runway with the ramp at one end and no taxiway. I would not expect to see the airpalne touch down on the numbers and then taxi for half a mile to the end of the runway. Assuming benign conditions and a light single engine aircraft I would expect to see a touchdown about 2500 feet down the runway. In the remaining 2500 ft the airplane will slow down on its own so that little or no braking braking will be needed and the aircraft will make the turn straight from the end of the landing run to the ramp. Similarly if landing from end adjacent to the ramp I wouild expect a short field landing right on the numbers, continuos light braking with the aircraft steered to the side of the runway as it slowed so a gentle turn could be made accross the width of the runway for a quick back track. I also would expect the judgement to know under what conditions this manoever should be used and more importantly when it should not be. I think discussions and practice of these sorts of manoevers can and should be worked into the training for the CPL license.

[AuxBatOn]

When you start flying the line it is important that new commercial pilots understand that the airplane they are sitting in is not there for their flying pleasure it is simply a tool. If operated efficently than it will be more productive and therefore make more money for the operator and ultimately benifit you. This is an important point which I do not think ever gets mentioned in commecial training.

I will never sacrifice safety for efficiency and productivity

I mentioned operational considerations; a good example is a 5000ft runway with the ramp at one end and no taxiway. I would not expect to see the airpalne touch down on the numbers and then taxi for half a mile to the end of the runway. Assuming benign conditions and a light single engine aircraft I would expect to see a touchdown about 2500 feet down the runway.

Again, where's that runway when you need it (ie: when things go sour)

Similarly if landing from end adjacent to the ramp I wouild expect a short field landing right on the numbers, continuos light braking with the aircraft steered to the side of the runway as it slowed so a gentle turn could be made accross the width of the runway for a quick back track. I also would expect the judgement to know under what conditions this manoever should be used and more importantly when it should not be. I think discussions and practice of these sorts of manoevers can and should be worked into the training for the CPL license.

Want to talk about efficiency and productivity? Light continous braking is the best way to wear the brakes quickly and get hot brakes.

AuxBatOn

[200hr Wonder]

How many accident reports do you need to read with people off the end of the runway?

[Big Pistons Forever]

When you start flying the line it is important that new commercial pilots understand that the airplane they are sitting in is not there for their flying pleasure it is simply a tool. If operated efficently than it will be more productive and therefore make more money for the operator and ultimately benifit you. This is an important point which I do not think ever gets mentioned in commecial training.

I will never sacrifice safety for efficiency and productivity

I mentioned operational considerations; a good example is a 5000ft runway with the ramp at one end and no taxiway. I would not expect to see the airpalne touch down on the numbers and then taxi for half a mile to the end of the runway. Assuming benign conditions and a light single engine aircraft I would expect to see a touchdown about 2500 feet down the runway.

Again, where's that runway when you need it (ie: when things go sour)

Similarly if landing from end adjacent to the ramp I wouild expect a short field landing right on the numbers, continuos light braking with the aircraft steered to the side of the runway as it slowed so a gentle turn could be made accross the width of the runway for a quick back track. I also would expect the judgement to know under what conditions this manoever should be used and more importantly when it should not be. I think discussions and practice of these sorts of manoevers can and should be worked into the training for the CPL license.

Want to talk about efficiency and productivity? Light continous braking is the best way to wear the brakes quickly and get hot brakes.

AuxBatOn

I guess we have a different defintion of what safe is , fair enough, However my expereince does not support your comments about light continuous braking. In this example the airplane would touch down at about 55 kts and would be stopped in about 800 feet. I have never expereinced brake fade or even the brakes gettting noticably hot with this kind of use. There has also never been a case of execessive brake wear on any aircraft I have flown. Speed should be managed so as to minimize the use of brakes as a general good practice IMO, however the brakes should be used when you need them and my example which is a situation that would occur relatively infrequently, is IMO a good example of brake use that is both appropriate and will not damage the equipment.

Auxbaton and 200hr wonder: Both of you seem to have pretty emphatic ideas of what is safe. Could you provide some examples of what you consider unsafe pratices. My intent is not to jump on you, rahter I simply want to get an understanding of where you are coming from.

[AuxBatOn]

I guess we have a different defintion of what safe is , fair enough, However my expereince does not support your comments about light continuous braking. In this example the airplane would touch down at about 55 kts and would be stopped in about 800 feet. I have never expereinced brake fade or even the brakes gettting noticably hot with this kind of use. There has also never been a case of execessive brake wear on any aircraft I have flown. Speed should be managed so as to minimize the use of brakes as a general good practice IMO, however the brakes should be used when you need them and my example which is a situation that would occur relatively infrequently, is IMO a good example of brake use that is both appropriate and will not damage the equipment.

You're probably right for a light single. However, you train commercial pilots. On heavier aircraft, your brakes will be spongy if you use continuous light braking to the end of a runway. I experienced it. I fly a heavier, faster aircraft. When we brake, SOP is you test the brakes on touch down, roll down the runway and when you want to exit, you apply full brake until you are at a safe taxi speed. Rule of thumb, if your speed is 100 kts and you have 5000 feet to go, you are good, same for 80 kts and 4000, 60 kts and 3000. If you are faster than 2X the distance to go, you apply full brake.

AuxBatOn

[robshelle]

While I know the parameters for wake turbulence, this is a good point. Read about it, but never really have learned it practically. As an aside, how frequently will a small plane be required to land while there is WT around the runway? Does ATC account for WT when spacing on final, especially for the little guys...I know the PIC should be asking for it, but just wondering.

As a general rule, no. If the light aircraft is VFR and sights the Med/Heavy A/C, then all we give is "Number 2 to follow, caution wake turbulence". We expect the pilots to know their limitations on how to fly behind wake turbulence, after all it is all explained to them during their flight training.

As for the rest of the arguments on where to land, my opinion is that if you are training at a facility that is more than adequate (5000' runway), generally use the numbers, but on occasion challenge the students to change things up. This is true especially for commercial students.

To prove the point, here at CYEG we get pipeliners all the time that are able to do whatever we ask of them, this includes turning base leg half way down runway 02 so as not to conflict with A/C on final runway 12, and they still get off on Bravo 1 all the time, amazing. Also, we constantly get A/C that go to Apron 2(general aviation/corporate) landing runway 30, which would be 2 miles of taxiing if they land on the numbers and taxi off on A2, so we approve the long landings, and they don't generally touch down until after A2 or A4 to save at least 1 mile of the taxi. Nothing dangerous about that.

The bottom line on landing an aircraft is that students(by the time they are almost finished training) should be able to put it down exactly where you want it at least 95% of the time.

Rob Benusic,
CYEG Tower, ex class 2 FI

[Big Pistons Forever]

How many accident reports do you need to read with people off the end of the runway?

Virtually all of the accident reports I have read for this kind of accident seemed to share a common theme. An unstabilized approach flown way too fast leading to touchdown well passed the desired point and then rather than going around the pilot tried to stop in the remaining insuficent runway. This goes to the point that myself and other posters have made about the importance of teaching students to fly stabilized on speed approaches with a touchdown at the preselected point and the decison making skills to know when an approach or landing is trending towards a potential bad outcome and making the early decision to try again. I challenge you to find one accident report were a light single touched down on speed, in control, and into the wind half way down a 5000 ft runway and then ran off the end.

[AuxBatOn]

To answer your question BPF, for me, a safe pilot will exercise good judgement in any situation and will display airmanship. Wasting ressources for no valuable reasons is, IMHO a lack of airmanship.

AuxBatOn

[Big Pistons Forever]

To answer your question BPF, for me, a safe pilot will exercise good judgement in any situation and will display airmanship. Wasting ressources for no valuable reasons is, IMHO a lack of airmanship.

AuxBatOn

OK so this is a flight training forum so my queston is how do you, auxbaton, teach good judgement ?

I challenged your post on continuos braking because I think it is important to be carefull when making blanket statements. Little in aviation is black and white and so context is important. I also try to explain the reasoning for my arguments. In that vien I will add to my expalination of brake use in light singles. I discourage the use of moderate or heavy braking (unless necesary for he safe operation of course )because IMO it unnecessarily strains the nose oleo and tire. I also do not like the way the airplane nose lurches down with heavy braking. Light braking gives a much smoother deacceleration in my experince. I have found new pilots have a tendancy to apply brake too early in the landing roll and with flaps down it is easy to lock a wheel and flat spot the tire. The bottom line is I have had good success
with this technique, but I acknowledge it is certainly not the only acceptable and safe way to operate the brakes on this kind of airplane. I also think care has to taken when importing operational practices from one kind of aircraft to another. For example the CONVAIR 580 has low touchdown speeds and even a little bit of BETA gives a lot of retardation force so in practice not a lot of braking is required on most landings, conversly a heavily loaded Chieftain with single brake calipers needs a lot of fairly heavy braking on virtually every landing. The understanding of the forces involved and how they apply to a particular aircraft is IMO the important teaching point.

It just occured to me I should caveat what I just said about the continuos light braking technique. I am assuming that the aircraft has Cleveland brakes. There are still a few old airplanes that have those awfull goodyear brakes. For those aircraft a single hard aplication of brakes works best.

[AuxBatOn]

BPF, good points but, 1 touch & go probably wears the tires more than heavy braking. I still go by my argument that light braking will actually wear your brakes faster than heavier braking. You never actually felt the anti-skid kicking in on airliners when they brake?

How to 'teach' airmanship? IMHO, there are 2 ways. By experience. Learn from your mistakes and make your best to prevent them from happenning (also true with other people's mistakes). The second one is the most important one IMHO. Ingrain in your students brain good habbits and show them good decisions. That way, they will learn at an early stage in their career what's good to do and what's not. By landing most of the time on the 1000 ft markers, it makes them think it's okay to do so on a regular basis and it's a good practice, when in fact, it isn't at all.

AuxBatOn

[Big Pistons Forever]

BPF, good points but, 1 touch & go probably wears the tires more than heavy braking. I still go by my argument that light braking will actually wear your brakes faster than heavier braking. You never actually felt the anti-skid kicking in on airliners when they brake?

How to 'teach' airmanship? IMHO, there are 2 ways. By experience. Learn from your mistakes and make your best to prevent them from happenning (also true with other people's mistakes). The second one is the most important one IMHO. Ingrain in your students brain good habbits and show them good decisions. That way, they will learn at an early stage in their career what's good to do and what's not. By landing most of the time on the 1000 ft markers, it makes them think it's okay to do so on a regular basis and it's a good practice, when in fact, it isn't at all.

AuxBatOn

I do not mind comments on my ideas but I do request they are accurate. I never said when I am teaching the student will quote land most of the time on the 1000ft markers unquote. What I did say was I trained presolo students to land on the 1000 ft markers. As the PPL training progresses I will move the touchdown point to a point on the runway approapriate to the exercise. The important point is the touchdown comes at the preselected point not at a random secton of the runway when the aircraft decides it wants to stop flying.