Late touchdown to get to terminal quicker?
 

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.

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

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.

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!

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!

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

Thank you all for your answers.

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

A good landing normally omits anything breaking :O

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?

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!

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 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.

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

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