Late touchdown to get to terminal quicker?

[LadyL2013]

I was recently on an ATR72 flight. Domestic terminal was at the opposite end to the TDZ. Instead of touching down at the beginning of the runway we didn't touch down until about 2/3 of the way down the runway and then braked fairly hard to exit to the domestic terminal. There was maybe 100ft of runway left judging by the distance markers. It didn't seem like we were having difficulty touching down but more like the pilot was deliberately holding it there to touch down later to get to the terminal more quickly. I was wondering if this is an acceptable procedure? Never seen anything like it before. Must admit I started to panic a bit when we had long passed midway before touching down.

[DaveReidUK]

Not exactly late touchdowns, but anecdotal evidence suggests that BA flights to LHR use less runway when landings are easterly (and they therefore need to turn about face to reach T5) than when the airport is on westerlies, when they will brake more gently and exit later.

Could be all a scurrilous rumour, of course. :O

[eckhard]

It’s true!

[Duchess_Driver]

Deliberate long landing = Bad practice. You never know what Murphy will throw at you. Land in the TDZ, ensure the safety of the aircraft then braking as required (could be light or delayed) to make the exit.

[Groundloop]

Bryman Dash 7s flying into Heathrow (from Newquay?) used to do that very frequently. Would touch down about halfway along, stop in about 250 metres exactly opposite the domestic gates at Terminal 1.

[Hotel Tango]

Deliberate long landing = Bad practice.

Broad statement. Depends very much on type (some can stop on a sixpence) and a host of other factors.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have those landings followed by heavy braking just to make a particular taxiway so as to shorten taxi time!

[LadyL2013]

So is deliberately touching down late a no-no or is it frowned upon but acceptable?

[Hotel Tango]

So is deliberately touching down late a no-no or is it frowned upon but acceptable?

I refer to my answer above. If you want a little more detail here is my attempt: ATR72s (and such like commuter aircraft) operate out of relatively short strips. If they are landing at an airport with say a 3000m runway there will be nothing inherently dangerous aiming to land half way down such a long runway. Similarly, these days one often sees short to medium range aircraft taking off from intersections rather than use the full length. The argument is that if the calculations indicate that they can safely abort at V1 from the point where they begin their roll it's deemed safe. I have to confess that in this respect I'm an old dog: if you have it, use it!

[pax britanica]

I lived in the Gulf . Qatar way back in the 70s, Gulf air , the then pan gulf regional airline who had a fleet of Bac 1-11 and F27s. In Qatar for the wind is pretty negligible much of the year and the F27s -like all turbo props can stop on a sixpence would fly a loooong way down the runway before making a late touchdown . The terminal was close to one end of the runway and the runway was 18000 feet long. Taxiing for about 15000 ft would probably take close to the same as the flight time from Bahrain

[LadyL2013]

Thank you all for your answers.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

Landing long is bad practice, however I can understand the temptation.

Landing in the right place and moderating the breaking to achieve a certain runway exit is excellent practice.

[ShyTorque]

I sometimes land across the width of the runway and land on the turn off link, rather than bother with landing along it.

[DaveReidUK]

Landing in the right place and moderating the breaking to achieve a certain runway exit is excellent practice.

A good landing normally omits anything breaking :O

[Doors to Automatic]

Which airport was this at LadyL2013?

I would say it is bad practice even with a long runway - in fact talking of BA I know they place a lot of emphasis on touching down in the TDZ. It is drummed in time and time again that if you miss the TDZ you go around - no exceptions. Recently I saw reported in their monthly safety brief that a 319 went around as they passed the last TDZ marking at LHR at only a foot or two above ground and what a good decision that was. This is despite the fact that the aircraft could have stopped in just over half the runway from that point!

I did see one of their 757s land a bit further down 25 years ago or so - but that was after advising ATC and asking if it was ok.

[Squawk 6042]

So if it is required to land within the TDZ regardless of the length of runway in front of you, why is it OK to do a de-rated take-off? Surely it should be full throttle on departure regardless of the length of runway in front of you?

[LadyL2013]

Which airport was this at LadyL2013?

I would say it is bad practice even with a long runway - in fact talking of BA I know they place a lot of emphasis on touching down in the TDZ. It is drummed in time and time again that if you miss the TDZ you go around - no exceptions. Recently I saw reported in their monthly safety brief that a 319 went around as they passed the last TDZ marking at LHR at only a foot or two above ground and what a good decision that was. This is despite the fact that the aircraft could have stopped in just over half the runway from that point!

I did see one of their 757s land a bit further down 25 years ago or so - but that was after advising ATC and asking if it was ok.

It was Jose Marti Havana with Cubana. The internal flying was interesting! It didnt feel unsafe but was certainly quite lax! No safety demonstration, no ticket needed, no external walk around checks, no cabin checks. Very much get on whilst the engines are starting, sit down, fly, no service, land, get off, pick your bags up from the apron and walk off!

[Hotel Tango]

DtoA, the thread was about an experience in an ATR72. Using A319s and B757s to support your opinion is misleading. The runway length at Havana is 4000m.

[meleagertoo]

So if it is required to land within the TDZ regardless of the length of runway in front of you, why is it OK to do a de-rated take-off? Surely it should be full throttle on departure regardless of the length of runway in front of you?
I suspect the answer is that a derated t/o has been calculated whereas a long landing cannot be as you have no way of measuring the exact touchdown point required. This is of course a relatively recent aberration resulting from stultifying airline SOPs that prevent airmmans*** oh! God! I nearly said that word! and assume pilots have neither the judgement nor ability to actually fly their aircraft. I guess if your SOP doesn't outlaw it there's no problem.

I had many illuminating discussions with indoctrinated f/o's who objected to autobrake off no reverse landings in a light 319 on 18R at Schipol for instance - just because it wasn't usually the config they used elsewhere. Perfectly OK by the manual and you still needed power taxiing off if you coasted more than ⅔ of the way down.
Did it save time? A few seconds perhaps but not really significant.

But we were forbidden to land long.

[DaveReidUK]

DtoA, the thread was about an experience in an ATR72. Using A319s and B757s to support your opinion is misleading.

Well you can blame me for bringing up BA, though I wasn't suggesting that they landed long, only that deceleration and braking varied depending on whether they were heading towards or away from T5.

As for DtoA's comment, I don't think the reference to A319s and 757s was intended to support the proposition that landing long was bad even with a long runway, which was just, well, an opinion. It's my opinion too, and I'm not offering any supporting evidence either. :O

[pax britanica]

Havana 4000m runway -I wonder why it is that long LoL.

I also suspect that my Gulf Air experiences in the 1970s while perfectly safe would still be allowed today with so much adherence on SOPs

[krismiler]

In the 1970s, there wasn’t the same obsession that we have with stabilised approaches currently. In the Emirates Dubai crash, the aircraft touched down slightly long but still had plenty of runway remaining, it was the botched go around that caused the accident.

[Atlas Shrugged]

The three most USELESS things in aviation:

The sky above you, the runway BEHIND you and the fuel you left behind!

Oh, and a fourth one - five minutes ago........

[arketip]

The three most USELESS things in aviation:

The sky above you, the runway BEHIND you and the fuel you left behind!

Oh, and a fourth one - five minutes ago........

You always fly with full tanks then, no matter the flight length?

[DaveReidUK]

You always fly with full tanks then, no matter the flight length?

I think you may have slightly missed the point.

The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire :O

[rogerg]

If landing "short" in the 1-11 at BFS you could take the first Turn off "which is really a turn on" and beat the BA A320 to the terminal, or so I heard.

[Doors to Automatic]

DtoA, the thread was about an experience in an ATR72. Using A319s and B757s to support your opinion is misleading. The runway length at Havana is 4000m.

I would respectfully disagree. Both the A319 and the 757 can stop well within 1000m and the longest runway at LHR is 3900m. The BA SOP therefore seems to align with my opinion.

LadyL2013 - I have flown internally in Cuba so understand exactly what you are saying! We had a Russian lady running up and down the aisle during the take-off run looking for her husband who it later transpired had been left in the bar at the origin airport (Cayo Largo).

[Hotel Tango]

I would respectfully disagree. Both the A319 and the 757 can stop well within 1000m and the longest runway at LHR is 3900m. The BA SOP therefore seems to align with my opinion.

I would never suggest landing a jet (whatever type) long regardless of SOP. However, I again reiterate that we are talking here about a turboprop on a 4000m runway. Absolutely no more dangerous than operating that same turboprop on runways a third of that length as is more often the case. In the days when I flew regularly on turboprops it was not unusual to experience long landings at certain airports, depending on runway in use and terminal location. So I just do not understand what all the fuss is about in this particular case. My message to LadyL2013 was that in her particular case and with the aircraft type she was on it was nothing to be alarmed about.

[LadyL2013]

To clarify, I was only alarmed as I have never landed long before and initially worried that we were so far down the runway without a go-around being performed. It was after TD I realised he was intentionally landing long. My real question was whether it was acceptable practice or not.

[Hotel Tango]

My real question was whether it was acceptable practice or not.

I guess that answers above will tell you that it is for some and it's not for others. Ultimately, if it's not frowned upon or strictly forbidden in the company's SOPs, then it's acceptable.