Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Landing on the numbers

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Landing on the numbers

Old 25th Jun 2012, 17:26
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,116
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
Landing on the numbers

Has landing on the numbers become recently fashionable or has it always been so?

Whilst i see there is an advantage in that it maximises the available runway that element is largely irrelevant for the average aircraft been flown privately.

On the downside however if you have any kind of issue on approach you risk coming up short.

Any views??
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 18:03
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ansião (PT)
Posts: 2,779
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
I was recently tutored exhaustively on the subject, but my concentration was bent on other matters. I'll try to rehearse what I remember, if only to honour the very kind AND most able tutor:

[quote tutor from naked unaided memory]
There's three possible goals:
-) to land as smoothly as possible, regardless of landing speed and run. This would be the way to land at a very long hard runway, I think Cambridge would be a good UK example. In this case one approaches at whatever speed, and lets it bleed off while floating one or two feet over the runway. ISTR a tiny bit of power may be added at the last second before touchdown, for utter smoothness.
-) to land at exactly the chosen spot, as one would have to do at certain examinations, at least I had to. In this case approach speed is chosen slightly higher than optimal, to keep up a bit of reserve for the unavoidable bit of turbulence, and it might be necessary to "slam her in"
-) to stop as short as possible, which requires touching down with minimal kinetic (sp?) energy. To achieve this one must approach at the absolute minimal safe airspeed, and accept touchdown might be slightly beyond the threshold. This is the way to land at a (very) short field. The non-optimal touchdown point will be more than made up for by the lesser speed.
[/quote]
Corrections and additions welcome!

Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 25th Jun 2012 at 18:04.
Jan Olieslagers is online now  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 18:11
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I suggest it depends on the runway? If there is a touchdown point marked then use that. If you are going into a relatively short field you want the maximum deceleration distance, so you use the numbers.

I suggest that for most pilots, they are much more likely to land long than short. If you are going to land short, get on the power. If you are going to land long / if you are fast and so will float, there is less you can do, but having aimed at the numbers initially will give you the best chance of getting it down first time.

I suspect though, it is the perfectionist in us - trying to be the most accurate, best pilots we can be, hitting precisely where we aim at (and there isn't another easily identified target at smaller airports).
riverrock83 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 18:25
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Landing on the numbers is the culmination of a precise approach and a precise landing.
It is what we strive to do ie to be accurate.
Landing on the numbers means we have the full published lengh of the runway to stop on maybe not quite as important in light singles by certainly important in large heavy aircraft.
Hence why the holiday jet is plonked on rather than going for the smoothest touchdown.
Get sloppy and one day you will find yourself on a minimal runway touching down 2/3rds down it so aim to get it right regardless of runway and take a pride in doing so.

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 18:26
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I live in hope that its because persudo pish airline ops have gone out of fashion.
mad_jock is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 18:45
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Landing on the numbers...

Look, each and every landing should be planned and thought out. Do you have an excellent runway well in excess of requirements for YOUR type of plane? then you don't have to land on the numbers and you have an extra reserve on both ends...stopping scenario and in case you came up short. I know one case who came up short by six inches, and managed to pull the landing gear off on the edge of the runway!

When I was instructing (CFIIMEIATPMEL) at a 2,500 foot strip, I selected the second stripe in the runway centerline as my, and my students, target for landing.

You should ALWAYS have a target, a spot, for landing in mind. I disagree with some of the advice given so far on this thread....IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW HOW TO LAND...buy a copy of "Stick and Rudder" and read about it...especially what is called the stall down landing.
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 19:20
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
to land as smoothly as possible, regardless of landing speed and run. This would be the way to land at a very long hard runway, I think Cambridge would be a good UK example
Hmm. I do always regard hearing "backtrack to charlie" as a bit of a failure. I'm sure an instructor once demonstrated a landing to me from which he could have left at bravo with no backtracking - OK there was a bit of a headwind, but the point was made.

The reason for landing on the numbers even on the 2km of tarmac at Cambridge is that it's good practice for your next landing which might be on 500m of grass.

Last edited by Gertrude the Wombat; 25th Jun 2012 at 19:22.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 19:27
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Landing in on the runway is different to on the numbers as the visual clues are different without the runway sides next to you.

I have alsways taught on the numbers be it 400m grass or 2000m tarmac. Then when they can do that everytime then we can have a look at "helping ATC out" by putting it down elsewhere.
mad_jock is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 19:42
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ansião (PT)
Posts: 2,779
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
each and every landing should be planned and thought out
tssk.

How nice to have such a novel idea defended and illustrated by a strong authority. On my own, I'd never have found out!
Jan Olieslagers is online now  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 19:47
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This reminds me of the landing on the centre-line thread. All I would add is that if you aim for the numbers you will touch down in the touch down zone past them, along with everyone else. To actually land on the numbers surely means aiming short of them. What about obstacles on the approach?
The500man is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 19:51
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You won't if you fly the approach at the correct speed.

Its only when you have to much energy to get rid of that you need to aim short.
mad_jock is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 19:56
  #12 (permalink)  
Spitoon
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
It's a long time since I learned to fly but I remember following the PAPI (OK, it was only an AVASI where I learned but the principle remains) which took you to a nominal touchdown point. I also learned how to put the darned thing where I wanted if I didn't have the luxury of visual approach aids or nice runway markings. In the latter case I was taught to aim at a point some distance along the runway if it was possible. One particular instructor took great pleasure in pointing out to me - just after the beast had rather surprisingly dropped out of the sky as I crossed the threshold in some dodgy wind, well that's my story - that touching down a little earlier than expected was far less embarrassing if there was some runway under you than if one was trying to be an ace by plonking it on the numbers.

I've also spent many years as a controller watching aeroplanes landing on 'my' runway generally touching down in the touchdown zone....which I guess is how it got its name. This broadly applied to both big and little aeroplanes.

I'm not trying to say that anyone is wrong, but it surprises me that it's not been mentioned so far. Nor am I suggesting that any pilot should not land on the numbers if it is necessary - or know how to do so - but surely it isn't something that should be normal practise.

Or have I misunderstood something?
 
Old 25th Jun 2012, 20:03
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes the touchdown zone is for instrument approaches and Pref A machines as are the PAPI's.

A 3 degree PAPI approach is just as inapproprate for a light aircraft as a light aircraft profile is to a 747.
mad_jock is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 21:01
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Landing on the numbers may not such as good idea on a grass strip where they have got other enthusiastic cutting the numbers into the turf or filling the 'numbers' with stone chippings which could be interesting!

Otherwise if the runway is long enough land where you want as long as you do it safely, if you dont need to aim for the numbers and try and force it you may cock up! Remember, treat every landing as potential go-around....

My 2p

J.
Julian is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 21:16
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Land appropriately for the point you wish to vacate the runway. At Liverpool, for instance, a light aircaft should (on 27) usually vacate at Foxtrot which means you need to slowed (without brake!) to easily do that. On a grass farm strip, the distance touchdown to vacate may be much shorter, so touchdown point and speed at touchdown should reflect that.

Land on 09 at Liverpool, however, you may cause unneccesarry delay if you land down at the 09 end when you need to vacate up at the other end near the GA apron, so you land very long so you are well positioned to make the appropriate turn off.

This is all very basic pilot skill stuff and I hope most reading this will be thinking 'grandma, eggs, suck'. But it seems from the forgoing that not all will!

Needless to say, PAPIs and 3 degree approaches are completly innappropriate for light VFR ops. As are bomber circuits, but that's another gripe!

Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 25th Jun 2012 at 21:20.
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 21:29
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Its all in your ethos of flying.

If anywhere on a 2000m strip will do for you thats fine.

If you take pride in flying to tight tolerences that is also fine. When the **** hits the fan, the pilot that hits the mark every time needs to pull of a life saver will have a higher chance of survival than the ones that dump it down anywhere.

Once the pilot can dictate where to put it down, then using next to a runway light as the aiming point to reduce runway occupancy is also another good skill set.

Having something other than tarmac or mowed grass under your wheels ft above the deck is a common groundrush issue with teaching PFL's which is why its not very good knocking them off at 500ft agl. It is also noticable when you do use short runways with little undershoot or on the side of water.
mad_jock is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 21:33
  #17 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14,202
Received 46 Likes on 24 Posts
I've been pushing myself hard on this lately.

I spent a couple of years mostly flying from 1000m++ runways, and am now back flying from 600m-- runways on a regular basis.

The sloppy habits that I got into from the long runways are no longer acceptable if I intend always getting to use the aeroplane again when often flying from runways down to 300m.

It's been good for me, and I am landing on the numbers again, and plan to keep it that way.

Of course, if landing on a long runway, and expecting to vacate near the far end, then land long. But in reality, that is a special case.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 21:41
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Wild West (UK)
Age: 45
Posts: 1,151
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
One of my scarier experiences during training was to fly in to a little grass strip. Just as I was about to touch down, my instructor yelled 'don't land on the numbers' and I made a real mess of the flare from which I had to be saved.

Seems the numbers were made of gravel, were quite rough, and wouldn't have done the aircraft any good had I landed on them.
abgd is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 21:46
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That says more about poor instructional technique than it does about landing on the numbers. If the numbers are a danger to safety it should be MOR'd and notam'd as such.
mad_jock is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2012, 21:48
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
abgd, if that was indeed the case, your instructor should have briefed you beforehand.


PS (edit): MJ has beaten me to it....

Last edited by 172driver; 25th Jun 2012 at 21:49.
172driver is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.