There is no short landing technique on a jet this size. Arriving on a decreased angle (3 red) carries higher pitch, more thrust, flatter sink and in general results in a longer touchdown and a higher speed at wheel spin-up. After that, exactly the same sort of people who use the A word to cover gaps in competency or understanding, will immediately claim: see how tight this was? Lucky my skygod decision to go 3 reds, it saved us. Yeah.
Aiming closer to the threshold, steepening the angle in the last stages is more consistent with the intention. Why not, if you know how not to try too hard. Still, reducing geometrical margins on purpose, creating ad-hoc flying techniques, is not the road to a happy retirement.
Land it consistently, as much identical as your everyday approach. Consistency brings predictable results. The touchdown is usually decided between 150 and 50 feet above the ground. If a runway below 2000 m requires a different skill-set, then the one you have on the longer runways is not a correct one. (Placement of PAPI at 400 or 450 m beyond the THR, as opposed to 291 m where the G/S geometric intercept is, WILL create a wrong skill set for those who follow PAPI through to the landing).
The above is a comment to the discussion here, not the incident itself. We will see what the investigation reveals, however, "no landings beyond TDZ markings" is a sound principle. I am curious to see if it did not work in BUR?
One last note: the (lack of) friction over THR markers at the far end, when wet/snowed, is what makes this man uneasy. The last 60 m you might critically need, and as if they did not exist. I suppose everyone had a NW skid during line up once, for no apparent reason.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 13th Dec 2018 at 11:17.
Reason: grammar, hopefully improved