I see. But why would you want to touch down at the very edge of the tarmac on a runway serviced by an ILS, in a light, i.e. Cessna Citation-type jet? Are there many ILS-equipped runways out there that are so short that you cannot safely land a smallish Citation on them off of a stabilised approach, utilising the GS all the way to touchdown?
Yes, there are many short runways with an ILS. CJ´s are used to land on just this kind of airports every day.
The airport shown in my video above (EDLN) has a LDA 1200m/3937 ft (threshold) and landing beyond glide slope of 978 m/3208 ft. Thats 222 Meters difference. Add a wet runway and you know what I am talking about. The falcon in my link above overrolled the runwayend by only 15 Meters.
There is an old saying in germany: "Landebahn, Säge und Schwanz, benutzt man ganz." Translation: runway, hacksaw and cock, you always use the full length.
Interesting, if one were on the ILS and becme visual at 1,000' would you continue on the GS or become a competant pilot and aim to land on or close to the numbers? Biggin has a clear final approach and is downhill, seems a good idea to me to land as early down the runway as possible, LBG has a convenient taxiway half way down the runway, makes easy access with an early touchdown. Each to their own but I prefer the numbers on a good day to much further down. One of the useless things in aviation is the "runway behind you" especially in the event of a brake failure which I have had.
Nuname, I am fascinated by your suggestion that to remain on the G/S once visual as opposed to diving down to the runway is a sign of incompetence. The last Global Express that attempted what you term competence tore its gear off, as you can easily verify via google.
Certification standard is to cross the threshold, on glide path, at 50', flare distance of about 1400-1600' and touchdown. Lots of experience, not much good, shows that following that procedure is better than destabilizing the vertical, readjusting the "aim point" and trying to touchdown at the numbers. Again, if the computed LDA is that short, divert. The Falcon 900 incident cited above is a great argument for diverting, not flying a destabilized approach and overrunning.
BTW, I don't see any need to claim that abandoning proven flight techniques is the mark of a "competent" pilot. I have about 5,000 hours of various BizJet experience, including Citations, plus an equal amount if heavy jet.
I am equally fascinated by your remarks, do you guys only go to airports with ILS? In my world I have to go to all sorts of places with varying degrees of ground based equipment. I would never suggest that "diving down the runway" is a mark of competance but the ILS is there as guidance for reduced visual conditions and if you are in good conditions from 1,000' why would you not take advantage of the full runway length? Using remarks like diving, destabilsing and readjusting the aim point just cloud over the issue. To try and paint the picture of a cowboy approach to make your point is not a true account of what happens in reality. To aim for the numbers is no more trying than a circling approach, a lot easier in fact, I guess you do those? As for the Global incident, I am very familiar, there was more to it than trying to hit the numbers.
We do operate into all sorts of strips not serviced by an ILS. We also operate into Biggin from time to time. The last time was at night, circling, in a GLEX. We did not attempt to land 'on the numbers' but performed a completely normal approach, landing and rollout. Which worked perfectly well.
We are expected to be stabilized on approach by 1000'. If we were to adjust our rate of descent at that point that would lead to changes in speed, hence thrust, etc. In other words, we would be destabilizing the approach and if we did not initiate a go-around at that point I would be expecting a call after the FDM had divulged our experimentation to the safety-people. This is my answer to your question, what you do is entirely up to you, of course.
If you choose to leave your constant glide-angle on your way down in order to touch down at a point closer to the numbers as opposed to the normal touchdown point, you must surely agree that you clearly ARE increasing your rate of descent, destabilizing and readjusting the aim-point. Readjusting the aim-point was the stated object of the exercise, was it not? That was the answer I was given a few posts up when I asked why people would want to do this. I received my answer, great. If you wish to fly your ship like that and your company/owner/insurer permits you to, who am I to object, fill your boots. Techniques differ. I was not trying to insinuate anything and certainly at no point did I even mention the word 'cowboy'. I was merely being curious.
I would not argue with you as I have the same opinion as you when it comes to folks making their own decisions on how to acheive the best reults. I would say however that, unless the A/P is doing the job to maintain the G/S, it requires constant adjustments all the way down and to modify this from at or above 1,000' requires very little change. I would also add that I only employ this technique in conditions that allow it and also with the agreement of the other pilot. Lets at least agree that the line and the numbers do signify the begining of the runway that can be safely used to land and I have never been criticised for landing early down the runway. I will continue to use this method as I believe there are many advantages including safety and brake wear.
[QUOTE][Not all piston twins! Flying a twin piston with trailing-link gear it is perfectly comfortable to land it without a distinct flare. The C404 loves this, especially if runway length is limiting. /QUOTE]
yes the app speeds are a tricky thing to land a 404 in real, a stunning demonstration how cessna with this airplane sqeezed categories on paper without any use in reality. some speeds were revised later.
beyond this a very nice aicraft ! ( and a funny thread !)