Questions, questions...
How much lower than 28 feet (standard) over the red lights do you want to go for a tailwind landing with a 330?
What is the point of deliberately choosing a landing deeper that the normal distance on any day, protecting the tarmac behind you? 3000 meters rwy most likely have a turnoff to take at 1700 meters, don't they.
The training departments by some lucky chance might just know what they are talking about.
And this is why automation will make us all jobless. Because it is configurable and can be improved. Humans as a group cannot. Freshly reliving other people's bad days since 200000 B.c.e.
Imagine, in 2022, professionals screaming out loud they need to fly shorter than expected as a failsafe means of avoiding an undesired state, and how they enjoy flying the plane for extra 15 seconds because this runway is too long anyway.
Here is a thought:
Why did the FAA chose not to follow the ICAO guidance but instead keep aiming markers at 1000' for even the longest runways? (at the same time they do set the PAPIs at 1500' to allow proper visual guidance for the largest incoming craft and protect threshold crossing clearance).
Thought 2:
Because the painting standard for JSI runway length requires the aim point markers at the first position (150 mtrs), to assure CAT near obstacle clearance (8 ft not enough) is actually the reason why the threshold needed to be displaced deeper down the pavement.?
Flare technique differs, no contesting that. The aiming point the pilot choses should not.
Most people probably don't even chose one. Rest assured by the outcome statistics, everyone seems to be doing a good job - again - we may think about it differently but end up doing the same thing.
On the other hand, the language of training needs to be clear and correct. So when we have a bad day the job is still done acceptably.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 15th Aug 2022 at 09:43.