Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Flying Instructors & Examiners
Reload this Page >

Short Field Landing -Definition Please

Wikiposts
Search
Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!

Short Field Landing -Definition Please

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 9th Jan 2000, 13:17
  #1 (permalink)  
de La Valette
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question Short Field Landing -Definition Please

Scenario: B737 requires (say) 1700 metres landing length from Flight Manual. Flight Manual also provides correct Vref for weight in order to satisfy the distance needed. This is for normal landing because the term "short field" is not defined in the manual. The speed used is generally 1.3 Vs, depending on certification parameters.

Most Cessna manuals give tables with a specific speed entitled Short Field Distances, which are also based on a flight manual chart speed of 1.3Vs. Why therefore is one called normal landing, and the other short field when the speeds are both based on the Flight Manual figures?

If 1.3Vs speeds are safe (30% above the power off stall), then why do flying schools teach faster speeds over the fence as a normal landing while reserving the 1.3Vs speed for short field landings. How long must a field be in GA parlance to deserve the title Short Field?

And if 747's, and other jet transports use 1.3Vs as normal procedure, are these then short field landings?

I read somewhere that true short field landings, sometimes known as Precautionary landings, were a military combat landing approaching just above the stall at 1.1VS power on stall.There was no float, the aircraft was flared with power on then cut - same as an aircraft carrier approach. Obviously not appropriate to civil flying schools.

Would it be correct to assume therefore, that the flying school syllabus short field landing at 1.3Vs over the fence is really a normal landing as used routinely in jet transport landings, and that short fields are in the eye of the beholder. Confusing, isn't it?
 
Old 9th Jan 2000, 17:11
  #2 (permalink)  
Angle of Attack
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Unhappy

It is interesting is'nt it. Firstly I think it's a lot easier for the jets to use a predetermined Vref speed without too much worries regardless of conditions, whereas its a little more difficult for a C152 to come in on final at the short field approach speed in gusty turbulent windshear conditions. I think flying the aircraft at slightly higher speed during a normal approach is just an increase in the safety margin if unexpected gusts are encountered. As for differences in a normal landing and a short field landing even though one might be approaching at the same speed, remember that the technique upon touchdown is going to be quite different ie. maximum braking in a short field landing. As for the "military style" approach I practise that one myself. For example the C152's short field approach speed is 54 knots but on a smooth day it is quite feasible to come down to 40 knots over the fence driving it in on power and coming to a stop before the end of the piano keys! Assuming there is a bit of headwind of course!
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.