Short-Field experience (on jet types)
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Oxford
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surprised nobody here has highlighted the huge difference in landing performance between business jets. Something like the Falcon 50 needs a fraction of the landing distance of say a Lear 60 or Premier 1. Factor for a wet runway and the latter two don't have access to thousands of airports that the Falcon will quite safely get into. We're talking typically 1500 to 2000 ft more runway required - that's a huge difference.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right too risky, so i'm staying.
Some of you chaps either have big b***s or are extremely stupid. Ya can't be too careful ya hear??!!!
Where did I put my tin hat darling?
Some of you chaps either have big b***s or are extremely stupid. Ya can't be too careful ya hear??!!!
Where did I put my tin hat darling?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The back end of nowhere!
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh this just gets better! So I agree with Cambioso, and you assume the byeeeeeeee bit? 
As for birds of a feather, at least I know I can fly.
Wow, sop_monkey and encorebaby, you two really are like the second part of your names here.
Sop_monkey, you'll need your clipboard, company ops manual, the necessary commercial EASA regulations, SMS manual, and risk assessment sheets for the clipboard as a minimum. Better start using them.
The company and EASA will help you get out of the room; they've got your back.
Now the door is 3 times wider than normal, but not sure thats an adequate enough safety factor for your operation. Let me know what the risk assessment reads. I'm guessing it'll come out as high risk, so thats a no-go! Bad news though, only one door out.
So you're now in an emergency with only the one door out but good news though too! You can follow the company ops manual and go out the window which is 6 times smaller than the door
- don't worry the manual says its fine because now its an emergency you don't need a safety factor
! You can believe whats written in the manual. The 6 storey drop you ask? Don't worry. I told you earlier. The company and EASA have got your back. 
Whats that you want me to think outside of the manual and ring 911/999/112, just for extra safety for you? Nah, sorry. Its not in your manual, therefore you don't need it do you? My thinking would require a full risk assessment, and imagine if the auditors gotta hold of my paperwork
So out you go, legs first. The problem is the company didn't factor in the size of your head to start with in the manual. And now you're stuck with your body out of the window suspended by your head.
Don't worry! Company and EASA will be there, once you've:
1) completed and filed an MOR for the danger you were put in,
2) filled in the safety feedback form (company manual requirement),
3) completed a risk assessment of the window you've just jumped out of, found out the manual is in error and written to the chief pilot, (you had a couple of minutes waiting time) and
4) auditor has audited your flight return paperwork. By the way, your weight and balance, shocking!
Let me know how it goes won't you?
flydive1 Post of the day goes to you fellow
As per usual I come to pprune to realise how much of an idiot I really am, and how common sense and practical skill, is being shadowed by baffoons hiding behind the word "safety" and thinking it will always protect them.
As for birds of a feather, at least I know I can fly.Wow, sop_monkey and encorebaby, you two really are like the second part of your names here.
Sop_monkey, you'll need your clipboard, company ops manual, the necessary commercial EASA regulations, SMS manual, and risk assessment sheets for the clipboard as a minimum. Better start using them.
The company and EASA will help you get out of the room; they've got your back. Now the door is 3 times wider than normal, but not sure thats an adequate enough safety factor for your operation. Let me know what the risk assessment reads. I'm guessing it'll come out as high risk, so thats a no-go! Bad news though, only one door out.
So you're now in an emergency with only the one door out but good news though too! You can follow the company ops manual and go out the window which is 6 times smaller than the door
- don't worry the manual says its fine because now its an emergency you don't need a safety factor! You can believe whats written in the manual. The 6 storey drop you ask? Don't worry. I told you earlier. The company and EASA have got your back. Whats that you want me to think outside of the manual and ring 911/999/112, just for extra safety for you? Nah, sorry. Its not in your manual, therefore you don't need it do you? My thinking would require a full risk assessment, and imagine if the auditors gotta hold of my paperwork
So out you go, legs first. The problem is the company didn't factor in the size of your head to start with in the manual. And now you're stuck with your body out of the window suspended by your head.
Don't worry! Company and EASA will be there, once you've:
1) completed and filed an MOR for the danger you were put in,
2) filled in the safety feedback form (company manual requirement),
3) completed a risk assessment of the window you've just jumped out of, found out the manual is in error and written to the chief pilot, (you had a couple of minutes waiting time) and
4) auditor has audited your flight return paperwork. By the way, your weight and balance, shocking!
Let me know how it goes won't you?
flydive1 Post of the day goes to you fellow
As per usual I come to pprune to realise how much of an idiot I really am, and how common sense and practical skill, is being shadowed by baffoons hiding behind the word "safety" and thinking it will always protect them.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: FL410
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now come on there PSF, gather up your toys and go to bed. There is no point in arguing your point coz, since you joined the ranks of the privateers aviation moved on in leaps and is now lining up to put you in your box along with the rest of us. We've all enjoyed Top Gun but it's just a movie and most of us realise that a modern commercial jet deserves a little more respect and quite frankly so do your pax. I honestly understand your point but the reality is that regulation will win out in the end and you'll end up having to pop your plane on an AOC just so you can be compliant, I hear Malta is cheap. The fact that you will have to seek a longer runway for your pax can only be good news for you anyway. LA Mole or Cannes? The sensible choice of course...Nice
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: london, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hang on, are we still talking about the same thing?
Nice, Cannes, La Mole?
you go to La Mole because its how you get to St Tropez.
you go to Cannes because its how you get to Cannes.
you go to Nice because the Landmark girls work at Nice. There is no other reason.
...mmmmm...landmark girls....
by the way, didn't this discussion start by talking about landing a Falcon at Guernsey? How is Guernsey short for a Falcon? Even Jez, with his fading eyesight and shaky hands, can land a falcon in about half the length of Guernsey. If you resurfaced it in Teflon and smeared in in a light coating of KY you could still probably land a falcon on it. Why are we talking about landing short on Guernsey? Probably land on 27 and turn off at Bravo if you tired hard on a breezy day.
Nice, Cannes, La Mole?
you go to La Mole because its how you get to St Tropez.
you go to Cannes because its how you get to Cannes.
you go to Nice because the Landmark girls work at Nice. There is no other reason.
...mmmmm...landmark girls....
by the way, didn't this discussion start by talking about landing a Falcon at Guernsey? How is Guernsey short for a Falcon? Even Jez, with his fading eyesight and shaky hands, can land a falcon in about half the length of Guernsey. If you resurfaced it in Teflon and smeared in in a light coating of KY you could still probably land a falcon on it. Why are we talking about landing short on Guernsey? Probably land on 27 and turn off at Bravo if you tired hard on a breezy day.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: EGKB
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"duck below the glide"
Mr T, surely when you do this on a visual approach the wings fall off don't they.
Cambisio have to admit don't understand this response - I assuming with this flippant comment you are one of these pilots who feel it acceptable to duck under the glide to get the plane into a tight spot!
What I don't understand is if you have calculated the landing performance which is based on 50ft over the threshold why the need to duck below the glide.
Also from the planes I have flown the AFM figures always show that a slightly steeper approach , say 3.5 degrees, reduces landing distance , so by convention 3 reds would increase your landing distance because you've reduced your approach angle.
Do other private pilots agree that ducking below glide is perfectly acceptable approach to landing on a short runway or are your of the opinion that this is gash!!
Also what your private boys keep on missing is that the landing on a short runway is only a small part of the puzzle. How many of your private guys have had to divert from small runway due say bad weather only to turn up at your alternate with all the fuel annuincator lights on due to keeping ramp fuel to a minimum to ensure you can make the landing distance at your original destination?
Mr T, surely when you do this on a visual approach the wings fall off don't they.
Cambisio have to admit don't understand this response - I assuming with this flippant comment you are one of these pilots who feel it acceptable to duck under the glide to get the plane into a tight spot!
What I don't understand is if you have calculated the landing performance which is based on 50ft over the threshold why the need to duck below the glide.
Also from the planes I have flown the AFM figures always show that a slightly steeper approach , say 3.5 degrees, reduces landing distance , so by convention 3 reds would increase your landing distance because you've reduced your approach angle.
Do other private pilots agree that ducking below glide is perfectly acceptable approach to landing on a short runway or are your of the opinion that this is gash!!
Also what your private boys keep on missing is that the landing on a short runway is only a small part of the puzzle. How many of your private guys have had to divert from small runway due say bad weather only to turn up at your alternate with all the fuel annuincator lights on due to keeping ramp fuel to a minimum to ensure you can make the landing distance at your original destination?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The back end of nowhere!
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Encorebaby, have you finished your diatribe yet? No, the regulation won't win, and we won't be forced to join in, because thankfully billionaires rule the world Plus, we'll just find a registry that suits. I bet you in 20years, we will still be able to have the same conversation. You really should work directly for EASA or an insurance firm. They'd love you.
Tom, you are spot on. A lot of pilots don't seem to appreciate the going to where they actually need to go for the passenger. Let's all just use the biggest runway nearby like Nice. P
off!
MisterT, where to start? I've never diverted out of a small strip with all the fuel annunciator lights on. Care to tell a story to us???? As for ducking below the glide, the glide is irrelevant when you are going into a short strip where there is no IAP or PAPIs. Your approach should put you on the numbers at a decent descent angle to clear all obstacles. The problems come from pilots so engrained with using the papi's that they can't cope without them. Skill loss again.
BTW, nothing wrong with ducking below the glide, when your are VISUAL and clear of Obstacles. It's steepening the approach path and therefore falls in to line with your performance assumption. If you went to some places Citation pilots go, and didn't adjust your technique, you would be a statistic. Once again, we are back to a discussion of being a pilot, or an aircraft IT operator.
Sop_monkey Thank you for the good sense of humour. Had a giggle writing it. Safe flying to you to.
Plus, we'll just find a registry that suits. I bet you in 20years, we will still be able to have the same conversation. You really should work directly for EASA or an insurance firm. They'd love you.Tom, you are spot on. A lot of pilots don't seem to appreciate the going to where they actually need to go for the passenger. Let's all just use the biggest runway nearby like Nice. P
off!MisterT, where to start? I've never diverted out of a small strip with all the fuel annunciator lights on. Care to tell a story to us???? As for ducking below the glide, the glide is irrelevant when you are going into a short strip where there is no IAP or PAPIs. Your approach should put you on the numbers at a decent descent angle to clear all obstacles. The problems come from pilots so engrained with using the papi's that they can't cope without them. Skill loss again.
BTW, nothing wrong with ducking below the glide, when your are VISUAL and clear of Obstacles. It's steepening the approach path and therefore falls in to line with your performance assumption. If you went to some places Citation pilots go, and didn't adjust your technique, you would be a statistic. Once again, we are back to a discussion of being a pilot, or an aircraft IT operator.
Sop_monkey Thank you for the good sense of humour. Had a giggle writing it. Safe flying to you to.
Last edited by PSF2J; 2nd Feb 2015 at 07:22. Reason: Forgot a bit!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGKB is a perfect example of a great place to duck under the G/S, low over the grass, shallow angle, on the numbers, save the brakes, happy pax. Still trying to work out how a steeper angle reduces landing distance, must have missed something over the years. 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NuName
I figure I may be able to assist. Take the angel to the extreme and approach vertically you will land real short. Whether the aircraft or anyone on-board would be in any shape to depart maybe be subject to debate.
I figure I may be able to assist. Take the angel to the extreme and approach vertically you will land real short. Whether the aircraft or anyone on-board would be in any shape to depart maybe be subject to debate.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: FL410
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nuname,
All normal AFM landing performance data is calculated from 50ft screen height. From this point it takes approximately 830 ft lateral forward distance to the touch down zone. What the AFM figure is saying is that, for example, at 50 ft altitude on approach the LDR equals 3000, this means 830 ft to the TDZ then a further 2170 ground run to stop.
If one increases ones approach angle then one is effectively bringing this 50 ft point closer to the TDZ which is the same physical point on the runway regardless of approach angle. For conjecture if we were to land vertically on the TDZ our ground run required in the AFM would be 2170 ft rather than 3000.
Ducking below the glide path is notoriously dangerous as proven by two very notable recent examples, a citation in Germany and a Lear Jet in Barbados though exact cause I'm not sure of both hit obstacles on the final approach path. A great deal of study by airlines has proven that unstable approaches, as yours would be by ducking below the glide, are a major cause of runway issues/crashes, again many notable examples.
All normal AFM landing performance data is calculated from 50ft screen height. From this point it takes approximately 830 ft lateral forward distance to the touch down zone. What the AFM figure is saying is that, for example, at 50 ft altitude on approach the LDR equals 3000, this means 830 ft to the TDZ then a further 2170 ground run to stop.
If one increases ones approach angle then one is effectively bringing this 50 ft point closer to the TDZ which is the same physical point on the runway regardless of approach angle. For conjecture if we were to land vertically on the TDZ our ground run required in the AFM would be 2170 ft rather than 3000.
Ducking below the glide path is notoriously dangerous as proven by two very notable recent examples, a citation in Germany and a Lear Jet in Barbados though exact cause I'm not sure of both hit obstacles on the final approach path. A great deal of study by airlines has proven that unstable approaches, as yours would be by ducking below the glide, are a major cause of runway issues/crashes, again many notable examples.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed.
A European Flag carrier took out the fence on approach to St Maarten a few years ago, in a 747. They certainly weren't 50' above, more like 5', as the fence is only about 6' IIRC. WX, server VMC.
A European Flag carrier took out the fence on approach to St Maarten a few years ago, in a 747. They certainly weren't 50' above, more like 5', as the fence is only about 6' IIRC. WX, server VMC.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When one becomes visual and continues the approach visually there is no longer a prescribed G/S to follow, so I will re-phrase, I make a lower approach visually than I would using instrument approach criteria. The steeper the approach the more difficult it becomes to transition to the touch down attitude making it probable that the distance from the threshold to the stopping point is increased. If there are no approach aids one makes a visual approach and with a shortish runway, and/or downhill, wet? is it good to aim to be 50 feet above the threshold when there are no obstacles to negotiate on the extended centreline?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: FL410
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NuName,
The actual distance from the touch down point to the end of the landing run (full stop) is not effected by approach angle. The only difference is the distance from screen height to Touch down point according to the AFM figures, increase the angle...reduce the LDR. A good example of this is London City, steep approach angle and short runway. Because the standard 50 ft screen height still applies according to performance calculations this will occure closer to the touch down point therefore not 830 ft but more like 400 ft (we have almost doubled the normal 3 degree angle so half the lateral distance, not exact science). Stopping distance is unchanged.
50 ft at the threshold is meaningless, under normal approach path angles one would expect to cross the threshold approximately higher than this. Visual approaches still require a stable approach which in turn must satisfy the criteria for a stable approach. Just because we can elect to fly a visual approach does not preclude safe obsticles clearance flying. One also be careful not to alter ones Verticle speed or approach angle greatly on short final because this will trigger EGPWS warnings resulting in a go around.
The actual distance from the touch down point to the end of the landing run (full stop) is not effected by approach angle. The only difference is the distance from screen height to Touch down point according to the AFM figures, increase the angle...reduce the LDR. A good example of this is London City, steep approach angle and short runway. Because the standard 50 ft screen height still applies according to performance calculations this will occure closer to the touch down point therefore not 830 ft but more like 400 ft (we have almost doubled the normal 3 degree angle so half the lateral distance, not exact science). Stopping distance is unchanged.
50 ft at the threshold is meaningless, under normal approach path angles one would expect to cross the threshold approximately higher than this. Visual approaches still require a stable approach which in turn must satisfy the criteria for a stable approach. Just because we can elect to fly a visual approach does not preclude safe obsticles clearance flying. One also be careful not to alter ones Verticle speed or approach angle greatly on short final because this will trigger EGPWS warnings resulting in a go around.