Landing on the numbers

[Pittsextra]

Has landing on the numbers become recently fashionable or has it always been so?

Whilst i see there is an advantage in that it maximises the available runway that element is largely irrelevant for the average aircraft been flown privately.

On the downside however if you have any kind of issue on approach you risk coming up short.

Any views??

[Jan Olieslagers]

I was recently tutored exhaustively on the subject, but my concentration was bent on other matters. I'll try to rehearse what I remember, if only to honour the very kind AND most able tutor:


There's three possible goals:
-) to land as smoothly as possible, regardless of landing speed and run. This would be the way to land at a very long hard runway, I think Cambridge would be a good UK example. In this case one approaches at whatever speed, and lets it bleed off while floating one or two feet over the runway. ISTR a tiny bit of power may be added at the last second before touchdown, for utter smoothness.
-) to land at exactly the chosen spot, as one would have to do at certain examinations, at least I had to. In this case approach speed is chosen slightly higher than optimal, to keep up a bit of reserve for the unavoidable bit of turbulence, and it might be necessary to "slam her in"
-) to stop as short as possible, which requires touching down with minimal kinetic (sp?) energy. To achieve this one must approach at the absolute minimal safe airspeed, and accept touchdown might be slightly beyond the threshold. This is the way to land at a (very) short field. The non-optimal touchdown point will be more than made up for by the lesser speed.

Corrections and additions welcome!

[riverrock83]

I suggest it depends on the runway? If there is a touchdown point marked then use that. If you are going into a relatively short field you want the maximum deceleration distance, so you use the numbers.

I suggest that for most pilots, they are much more likely to land long than short. If you are going to land short, get on the power. If you are going to land long / if you are fast and so will float, there is less you can do, but having aimed at the numbers initially will give you the best chance of getting it down first time.

I suspect though, it is the perfectionist in us - trying to be the most accurate, best pilots we can be, hitting precisely where we aim at (and there isn't another easily identified target at smaller airports).

[Pace]

Landing on the numbers is the culmination of a precise approach and a precise landing.
It is what we strive to do ie to be accurate.
Landing on the numbers means we have the full published lengh of the runway to stop on maybe not quite as important in light singles by certainly important in large heavy aircraft.
Hence why the holiday jet is plonked on rather than going for the smoothest touchdown.
Get sloppy and one day you will find yourself on a minimal runway touching down 2/3rds down it so aim to get it right regardless of runway and take a pride in doing so.

Pace

[mad_jock]

I live in hope that its because persudo pish airline ops have gone out of fashion.

[sevenstrokeroll]

Landing on the numbers...

Look, each and every landing should be planned and thought out. Do you have an excellent runway well in excess of requirements for YOUR type of plane? then you don't have to land on the numbers and you have an extra reserve on both ends...stopping scenario and in case you came up short. I know one case who came up short by six inches, and managed to pull the landing gear off on the edge of the runway!

When I was instructing (CFIIMEIATPMEL) at a 2,500 foot strip, I selected the second stripe in the runway centerline as my, and my students, target for landing.

You should ALWAYS have a target, a spot, for landing in mind. I disagree with some of the advice given so far on this thread....IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW HOW TO LAND...buy a copy of "Stick and Rudder" and read about it...especially what is called the stall down landing.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

to land as smoothly as possible, regardless of landing speed and run. This would be the way to land at a very long hard runway, I think Cambridge would be a good UK example
Hmm. I do always regard hearing "backtrack to charlie" as a bit of a failure. I'm sure an instructor once demonstrated a landing to me from which he could have left at bravo with no backtracking - OK there was a bit of a headwind, but the point was made.

The reason for landing on the numbers even on the 2km of tarmac at Cambridge is that it's good practice for your next landing which might be on 500m of grass.

[mad_jock]

Landing in on the runway is different to on the numbers as the visual clues are different without the runway sides next to you.

I have alsways taught on the numbers be it 400m grass or 2000m tarmac. Then when they can do that everytime then we can have a look at "helping ATC out" by putting it down elsewhere.

[Jan Olieslagers]

each and every landing should be planned and thought out

tssk.

How nice to have such a novel idea defended and illustrated by a strong authority. On my own, I'd never have found out!

[The500man]

This reminds me of the landing on the centre-line thread. All I would add is that if you aim for the numbers you will touch down in the touch down zone past them, along with everyone else. To actually land on the numbers surely means aiming short of them. What about obstacles on the approach?

[mad_jock]

You won't if you fly the approach at the correct speed.

Its only when you have to much energy to get rid of that you need to aim short.

[Spitoon]

It's a long time since I learned to fly but I remember following the PAPI (OK, it was only an AVASI where I learned but the principle remains) which took you to a nominal touchdown point. I also learned how to put the darned thing where I wanted if I didn't have the luxury of visual approach aids or nice runway markings. In the latter case I was taught to aim at a point some distance along the runway if it was possible. One particular instructor took great pleasure in pointing out to me - just after the beast had rather surprisingly dropped out of the sky as I crossed the threshold in some dodgy wind, well that's my story - that touching down a little earlier than expected was far less embarrassing if there was some runway under you than if one was trying to be an ace by plonking it on the numbers.

I've also spent many years as a controller watching aeroplanes landing on 'my' runway generally touching down in the touchdown zone....which I guess is how it got its name. This broadly applied to both big and little aeroplanes.

I'm not trying to say that anyone is wrong, but it surprises me that it's not been mentioned so far. Nor am I suggesting that any pilot should not land on the numbers if it is necessary - or know how to do so - but surely it isn't something that should be normal practise.

Or have I misunderstood something?

[mad_jock]

Yes the touchdown zone is for instrument approaches and Pref A machines as are the PAPI's.

A 3 degree PAPI approach is just as inapproprate for a light aircraft as a light aircraft profile is to a 747.

[Julian]

Landing on the numbers may not such as good idea on a grass strip where they have got other enthusiastic cutting the numbers into the turf or filling the 'numbers' with stone chippings which could be interesting!

Otherwise if the runway is long enough land where you want as long as you do it safely, if you dont need to aim for the numbers and try and force it you may cock up! Remember, treat every landing as potential go-around....

My 2p

J.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Land appropriately for the point you wish to vacate the runway. At Liverpool, for instance, a light aircaft should (on 27) usually vacate at Foxtrot which means you need to slowed (without brake!) to easily do that. On a grass farm strip, the distance touchdown to vacate may be much shorter, so touchdown point and speed at touchdown should reflect that.

Land on 09 at Liverpool, however, you may cause unneccesarry delay if you land down at the 09 end when you need to vacate up at the other end near the GA apron, so you land very long so you are well positioned to make the appropriate turn off.

This is all very basic pilot skill stuff and I hope most reading this will be thinking 'grandma, eggs, suck'. But it seems from the forgoing that not all will!

Needless to say, PAPIs and 3 degree approaches are completly innappropriate for light VFR ops. As are bomber circuits, but that's another gripe!

[mad_jock]

Its all in your ethos of flying.

If anywhere on a 2000m strip will do for you thats fine.

If you take pride in flying to tight tolerences that is also fine. When the **** hits the fan, the pilot that hits the mark every time needs to pull of a life saver will have a higher chance of survival than the ones that dump it down anywhere.

Once the pilot can dictate where to put it down, then using next to a runway light as the aiming point to reduce runway occupancy is also another good skill set.

Having something other than tarmac or mowed grass under your wheels ft above the deck is a common groundrush issue with teaching PFL's which is why its not very good knocking them off at 500ft agl. It is also noticable when you do use short runways with little undershoot or on the side of water.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've been pushing myself hard on this lately.

I spent a couple of years mostly flying from 1000m++ runways, and am now back flying from 600m-- runways on a regular basis.

The sloppy habits that I got into from the long runways are no longer acceptable if I intend always getting to use the aeroplane again when often flying from runways down to 300m.

It's been good for me, and I am landing on the numbers again, and plan to keep it that way.

Of course, if landing on a long runway, and expecting to vacate near the far end, then land long. But in reality, that is a special case.

G

[abgd]

One of my scarier experiences during training was to fly in to a little grass strip. Just as I was about to touch down, my instructor yelled 'don't land on the numbers' and I made a real mess of the flare from which I had to be saved.

Seems the numbers were made of gravel, were quite rough, and wouldn't have done the aircraft any good had I landed on them.

[mad_jock]

That says more about poor instructional technique than it does about landing on the numbers. If the numbers are a danger to safety it should be MOR'd and notam'd as such.

[172driver]

abgd, if that was indeed the case, your instructor should have briefed you beforehand.


PS (edit): MJ has beaten me to it....

[abgd]

He should have... But we survived and I learned something about go-arounds and I'm sure he learned something about instructing.

I never got out of the plane so I can't say how rough the numbers were. I strongly doubt they would have ripped the undercarriage off, but I can also see the sense in trying to avoid the lumpiest bits of runway if there's enough to spare.

[sevenstrokeroll]

Jan Olieslagers...glad I could help you out. Maybe you can dig up a few bucks and take a lesson.
:-0
----

I've seen a couple of things here that just ain't right. saying that light planes VFR shouldn't be flying 3 degree glidepaths? and why the heck not? (unless higher due to wake turbulence from preceeding traffic)

And aiming short, because you have too much speed? There are more precise ways to fly...read the book I mentioned in previous post and learn to do a spot landing.

[Fuji Abound]

Forget the numbers all they do is mark the start of the runway; there's no sign saying land here.

You are the pilot and you decide where to touch down, simply take absolute pride in landing exactly where you decide.

There might be a nasty bump in the grass just after the numbers, if there is enough runway land beyond the bump, lots of houses on the approach and a higher approach and a deeper landing could be the order of the day.

Simple really unless you are a cat driver operating to and from pristine tarmac in which case dump it on the numbers every time; its just a bit boring really and a lot less fun.

[Pilot DAR]

The skill to be able to pick your touchdown point becomes more important when landing on less prepared surfaces. On skis or floats, it can be pretty important to set the plane down nicely just beyond that drift, snowmobile track, or boat wake. that kind of precision is an important skill to practice. Of course, it's important for a forced approach too!

[Spitoon]

Yes the touchdown zone is for instrument approaches and Pref A machines as are the PAPI's.
A 3 degree PAPI approach is just as inapproprate for a light aircraft as a light aircraft profile is to a 747.
I fully understand that a light aircraft following PAPIs is not going to land at the same point on the runway as a 747 but, as a principle, I see no reason for ignoring aids put there to assist approach and landing. If there is a 'proper' TDZ the runway length will almost certainly not present challenges for light aircraft.

A farm strip is a different matter altogether, and that's why knowing how to touchdown where you want is an essential skill.

Things like bomber circuits and landing long to help ATC are completely different subjects.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Flying a 3 degree slope or landing according to PAPIs in a SEP means dragging it in long and low on high power. Yes, you can do it. But it's pi55 poor technique, quite innapropriate for that class of aeroplane.

I've noticed that drivers who do this are often the same ones that think there's such a thing as 'rotate speed' for a SEP!

[The500man]

You won't if you fly the approach at the correct speed.

What speed is that then? ;)

The skill to be able to pick your touchdown point becomes more important when landing on less prepared surfaces.

This is something I've been trying to get to grips with more and more recently since I've been flying something that takes every bump, crest or undulation as an opportunity to go again! It's certainly not easy to land softly on a choice patch of grass between what often seems like mountainous terrain!

[mad_jock]

Well the accident statistics don't really point towards us having a problem with people undershooting.

On the other hand there are regular listings with going off the side and going off the end.

Touch down zones tend to be contaminated with rubber which when damp/wet give poorer grip than the tarmac behind which is why I tend to avoid them if I can in a light aircraft.

And if you are a CAT driver you most certainly don't dump it on the numbers.

It falls into one of the great sayings in aviation.

Nothing more useless than....

Fuel in the bowser unless your on fire.
Air above you.
Runway behind you.

Spittoon those aids arn't relevant to GA aircraft flying VFR. If you fly as per magenta line borg ops if you have an engine failure on 90% of the approach you are an article in the local newspaper. If you fly a normal GA profile you should be able to adjust your profile on failure so that you either make the runway or at least crash onsite which is realtively clear I hope of people and obstructions.

[riverrock83]

I've noticed that drivers who do this are often the same ones that think there's such a thing as 'rotate speed' for a SEP!
In my SEP the POH has a recommended rotate speed. Mind you - I haven't been taught to use it so I have treated it as academic...

To practice landing on small/short runways or for PFLs when returning home, my instructor has had me try to land on the left half of the runway with the piano keys representing a row of trees and one of the touch down zone markers a hedge. Quite satisfying getting that right (and is a good reminder how much runway you really need to land a small plane!!

Mind you - if doing a full stop landing I tend to aim for at least the touch down zone, otherwise its a long slow taxi on the active runway to vacate.

[FullWings]

I'd say the most important thing is that as a pilot you are able to select and maintain a reference point, plus arrive there at the correct speed to enable a touchdown and rollout to a stop inside your planned landing area.

IMHO there's nothing inherently wrong with landing an aircraft further down the runway than the TDZ, if you've done it deliberately after assessing LDA vs. LDR for the conditions. The problems start when people land long because of poor speed control and/or inability to stabilise the approach in terms of aiming point.

I have had "interesting" flights with guys who didn't seem to have any consistent technique for putting the aeroplane down and sort of relied on getting it over the end of the runway at various speeds/heights/attitudes, then accepting whatever happened in terms of touchdown point or runway used. I do wonder whether they got like that over time or whether they were *ever* taught to do it properly...

[mad_jock]

my instructor has had me try to land on the left half of the runway with the piano keys representing a row of trees

Although better than nothing it won't prepare you for the ground rush of green stuff whizzing under your tyres a couple of feet below you. Which is normally when the pilot pulls back and cocks it all up.

Just to add my view is the same as above. Nothing wrong with putting it down anywhere you like for a reason. With the absence of any reason there really is no real excuse for not using the runway full length.

I always wonder sometimes with these touchdown zone landers touch and go's if they have a clue how much room they actually need to perform one and give them least risk.

Touch down on or near the numbers power up and your airborne before you are even at the touch down markers. With loads of runway still ahead of you more than if you had just done a normal TO. Even with only 1500m of runway you would still be able to land on before x wind.

[The500man]

Well the accident statistics don't really point towards us having a problem with people undershooting.

That's true but as long as the engine is working it is normally possible to drag it in no matter how low you get. That's obviously not the best way to be landing, but it can be done at the correct approach speed and it's not uncommon to see.

[mad_jock]

but as long as the engine is working

You have increased your risk exposure by doing so.

The we have the other magneta line borg factors such as increasing the approach speed for you name it and a bit from mother as well. Power on landings because it makes it smoother and the fact that you have just used could be anything up to a third of the runway for no reason with I might add you doing your performance for the full length.

Its no wonder folk are happily mowing the grass in airfields around the country increasing everyone elses insurance premiums. Purely because they are talent limited.

[FleetFlyer]

My 2p on this is that I always go for the numbers unless the runway is uneven, such as at White Waltham where its a pretty lumpy around the numbers on one or two of the runways, or when I'm flying into a bigger airport (Oxford for example) and I land deliberately long because of the taxiway positioning.

At least 2/3rds of all my landings are on short farmstrips and the ability to not screw up those landings counts for something. Plus, giving oneself something to aim for leaves you with a sense of achievement if you nail it.
Which is nice.

[GeeWhizz]

I have had "interesting" flights with guys who didn't seem to have any consistent technique for putting the aeroplane down and sort of relied on getting it over the end of the runway at various speeds/heights/attitudes, then accepting whatever happened in terms of touchdown point or runway used. I do wonder whether they got like that over time or whether they were *ever* taught to do it properly...

You've been watching (laughing at) my landings ;)

In all seriousness I like to touch down on the numbers regardless of runway length. There are many things that we can take into account such taxiway exit distances, excess rubber on the runway, and whatever but for our usual small aeroplanes I don't think it makes much difference.

Being able to put the aeroplane where you want it is what counts. So touching down on the numbers every time becomes more of a personal challenge whether its a short wet grass runway, or a gazillion mile long stretch of asphalt. I think I'm lucky in that for a runway to be 'short' in my mind it has to be less than 400m and wet grass - keeps it exciting too :D

[vincegod]

I once followed a pioneer 300 into a flyin at filton that landed on the numbers and then he proceeded to taxi for 10 mins the whole length of the runway. I could not land until he had cleared the active and then also landed on the numbers but my taxi only lasted for 30 secs before parking up behind him. He apologised and said as he was a airline pilot he was not use to landing long. So learn to land appropriately that best suite the conditions.

[Pilot DAR]

Sometimes you just gotta put it on the "numbers"...

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Aircraft/IMG_3561.jpg


http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Aircraft/IMG_3562.jpg

[Humaround]

Landing as short as possible, like regularly flying glide approaches, is good practise for when you might have to do it for real.

I do it routinely now at my home strip (570m grass). I appreciate ATC might not want glide approaches all the time if you live at a big airport, but even then I think I would try to do it as often as possible. Who knows - you might start a trend to downsize the bomber runs!

[S-Works]

When I was instructing (CFIIMEIATPMEL) at a 2,500 foot strip, I selected the second stripe in the runway centerline as my, and my students, target for landing.

Thats not a strip, its Heathrow.... I put 5ton down on shorter than that 30 times a day..... :p

If I don't hit the numbers I will hit the hedge at the other end!!!

[Gargleblaster]

IMHO:
If you fly into short fields, every landing should be used to practice and maintain your skills in that area. If that, on a long hard runway with fancy numbers, means landing before, on or behind the numbers then so be it.

[Pilot DAR]

Decades ago I landed a Twin Otter at Harare, Zimbabwe. The terminal was at the far end of the runway. My capatin just turned to me and said: "land long". I replied: "yeah, I figured that out." That runway is 15,500 feet long (14,500 or so more than a Twin Otter needs to land and stop).

Apparently this runway was built so long to accomodate BOAC Comet's hot and high performance requirements in the day.

[peterh337]

I haven't read the whole thread but it's worth a mention that if you follow the approach lights you will not land on the numbers.

You will land in the touchdown zone, some way down the runway.

To land on the numbers, the approach lights will be all four red for quite a while.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

To land on the numbers, the approach lights will be all four red for quite a while.
Wouldn't know, by the time I touch down I stopped looking at the lights some time back.

[Flyingmac]

Numbers? Centreline? Tarmac? 3 degrees with no trees? What bliss that must be!:)

[Heston]

Bliss? Sounds awful. Give me 500m of grass, no numbers, trees on the approach and a friendly club house...

Bit like the aviation equivalent of Orwell's "The Moon Under Water"

H

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I haven't read the whole thread but it's worth a mention that if you follow the approach lights you will not land on the numbers.

You will land in the touchdown zone, some way down the runway.

To land on the numbers, the approach lights will be all four red for quite a while.

Negative. If I bother to glance at them, I see 'all whites'. ;)

Here's a (quite low for me) approach into EGGP:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/GZK6NK/DSC03621res-2.jpg

[Flyingmac]

Bliss? Sounds awful. Give me 500m of grass, no numbers, trees on the approach and a friendly club house...

Bit like the aviation equivalent of Orwell's "The Moon Under Water"

H


500mtrs? Greedy:=