Why do pilots land at the thousand foot markers?

OK, so if you're landing an airliner, aim for the 1000' fixed distance markers (so you don't drag your big ass through the grass).

If you're landing a GA aircraft, aim for the numbers. (But if you're landing a GA aircraft at night, probably use the VASI/PAPI and aim for the 1000' fixed distance markers to ensure you don't hit anything.)

I believe you do have it right. Check out these flight accidents to see what happens when commercial aviation lands well before the big blocks on the runway:

Asiana 214
American 1572.

Those were easy to find, and I don't think it is a comprehensive list. Now find me a list of accidents where airliners have landed so long that they ran off the far end of the runway. Yes there is such a list but landing short is much more common.

The practice of landing airliners on the big blocks saves lives.

-Skip
 
kicktireslightfires said:
What I take away from it is:

The 1,000' fixed distance markers are just an aiming point for airliners. And when they aim for the 1,000' fixed distance markers, their main gear -- which is quite below them and far behind them -- is going to touchdown right around the 500' marker (500' to 700').
Click to expand...
No, not just for airliners.

Anyone checking under an ATP ACS has them as the touchdown requirement, and there comes a point long before you get even to small corporate jets that ensuring a stabilized (and comfortable for the passengers) approach has you continuing down the electronic glide slope/glide path rather than making abrupt changes in flight path to land shorter.
 
Skip Miller said:
OK, so if you're landing an airliner, aim for the 1000' fixed distance markers (so you don't drag your big ass through the grass)....
Click to expand...

...or San Francisco Bay!

(OK, I know that one had other causes, but I couldn't help myself!)
 
kicktireslightfires said:
Isn't that why we pull to idle during run-up to make sure it doesn't quit? I noticed that some pilots pull to idle for about one second during run-up. I think that's foolhardy. I like to let it sit there at idle for at least 5 to 10 seconds just to confirm that when I'm coming in over the threshold pulled to idle that the engine isn't going to quit. It's no guarantee it won't, but if I just tested it before the flight, it's a very good chance it will be fine.
Click to expand...

Does anybody really do that? Or are you hearing the RPM drop when someone checks their constant speed prop? I've never intentionally tested idle as part of run up. I do sometimes pull power to idle on final, but if I do that I'm ready for the engine to stop. Even then, I've had an engine sputter, and need a little bit of throttle, but with an aluminum propped plane it hasn't been a big deal.
 
kicktireslightfires said:
Isn't that why we pull to idle during run-up to make sure it doesn't quit? I noticed that some pilots pull to idle for about one second during run-up. I think that's foolhardy. I like to let it sit there at idle for at least 5 to 10 seconds just to confirm that when I'm coming in over the threshold pulled to idle that the engine isn't going to quit. It's no guarantee it won't, but if I just tested it before the flight, it's a very good chance it will be fine.
Click to expand...
One important reason to pull the throttle all the way back during run up is to make sure the the thingamajig that keeps the throttle cable from just coming out is working. Ya don’t want to first find that out when you pull the throttle up there for descent.
 
Oh! You guys have those pull knob lawnmower things! I forgot about those. Got it. :)

(ducking)
 
Albany Tom said:
Does anybody really do that? Or are you hearing the RPM drop when someone checks their constant speed prop? I've never intentionally tested idle as part of run up. I do sometimes pull power to idle on final, but if I do that I'm ready for the engine to stop. Even then, I've had an engine sputter, and need a little bit of throttle, but with an aluminum propped plane it hasn't been a big deal.
Click to expand...
I do it every flight.
 
Albany Tom said:
Does anybody really do that? Or are you hearing the RPM drop when someone checks their constant speed prop? I've never intentionally tested idle as part of run up.
Click to expand...

Every run-up. RPM up, Mag check, carb heat on to check for drop, throttle idle, pause, carb heat off to check for rpm rise then back to 1000 rpm idle.
 
Albany Tom said:
Does anybody really do that? Or are you hearing the RPM drop when someone checks their constant speed prop? I've never intentionally tested idle as part of run up. I do sometimes pull power to idle on final, but if I do that I'm ready for the engine to stop. Even then, I've had an engine sputter, and need a little bit of throttle, but with an aluminum propped plane it hasn't been a big deal.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it matters what you’re talking about there’s probably someone doing it every day.
 
Pugs said:
Every run-up. RPM up, Mag check, carb heat on to check for drop, throttle idle, pause, carb heat off to check for rpm rise then back to 1000 rpm idle.
Click to expand...

Huh. I've never done it as an intentional step. Just checked the POHs for the various PA-28's I've flown - cherokee, archer, arrow, dakota, it's not in there. RPM up, mag check, carb heat or alt air check, vacuum check, prop check as applicable, oil temp and pressure, back down. Nothing about checking idle.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I don’t think it matters what you’re talking about there’s probably someone doing it every day.
Click to expand...

Yeah, other than the Cessna joke I wasn't picking on anyone. I'd honestly never heard of it as a check.
 
I would say that if you want to be really good at landings, land the same way every time. Same angle, same approach speed, same aim point. DO you have to? No. Will your landings be better? Yes. Safer? Probably.

Added: And if you aim for the numbers and your engine goes out at 200/300 ft. AGL, might be crashing in the weeds or the fence, with 5000+ ft. of pavement just a couple hundred feet away.
 
Albany Tom said:
...I've never intentionally tested idle as part of run up. ...
Click to expand...
I'll bet many of us do an inadvertent idle check. First, you gently start the plane, then adjust throttle to about 1000 rpm, and let it warm up a minute. Taxi to the run-up area and pull to idle while preparing for the run-up. There's your idle-stop check completed simply in the course of preparing for takeoff.

Or, after the run-up, pull to the idle-stop while configuring for takeoff. Back to about 1000 rpm to taxi to the hold line.
 
Rockymountain said:
I would say that if you want to be really good at landings, land the same way every time. Same angle, same approach speed, same aim point. DO you have to? No. Will your landings be better? Yes. Safer? Probably....
Click to expand...
Until ATC says, "I'll call your base."
Or, "There's a G4 behind you, please increase airspeed and turn off onto taxiway alpha."
Or, "There's a G4 on a five mile straight-in. Please execute a right-hand 360 for spacing."
Or, there's a 15 kt direct crosswind with ground chop banging your head against the headliner.
Or, ...
 
@Domenick , you and I know a place where going below the PAPI guidance will get you a phone number to call. I'll bet there are plenty of other places like that too.

I like to play different "what ifs" when I land. Landing the same way every time is boring.

Final landing on 16? I'll air-taxi in ground effect and see how slow I can go, slipping from one side of the runway to the other. Then, I'll land in time to make the turn-off to my hangar. If I mess it up, no problem, just roll out the 1,000' to the end of the runway.

Or, I may go over to that 2,400 x 40 runway and see if I can make the midfield turn-off. Its gotta be a really steep approach, and theres always a little burble coming in over the trees and across the river.

Some times the local crowd gets a bit peeved with me when I'm doing crosswind stop & go's. I hear "winds are favoring 34". Don't worry guys, its still "see & avoid" aviation out there.
 
Last edited:
danhagan said:
Landings on runways located on a Mesa-hilltop catch a lot less downdraft landing long (Catalina, Dona Ana NM, Sedona) ...
Click to expand...

Los Alamos is another good one. The single runway at KLAM, 9/27, requires landings on 27 and takeoffs on 9 because it's on a mesa.

I had reason to travel weekly from Albuquerque to one of the labs in the late 70s. Back then, the road from the turnoff at Pojoaque up to Los Alamos was still rather primitive and time consuming. I lived close to KABQ, so it was easier to hop on a Twin Otter operated by Ross Aviation, a commuter airline, to make the trip.

On a typical summer day, the ambient temperature at KLAM combined with the 7,170' airport elevation meant the Twotter had to be twisted up tight before releasing the brakes. It was an Elvis Presley takeoff, because there was a "Whole Lot-ta Shakin' Goin' On."

:D
 
3393RP said:
Los Alamos is another good one. The single runway at KLAM, 9/27, requires landings on 27 and takeoffs on 9 because it's on a mesa.

On a typical summer day, the ambient temperature at KLAM combined with the 7,170' airport elevation meant the Twotter had to be twisted up tight before releasing the brakes. It was an Elvis Presley takeoff, because there was a "Whole Lot-ta Shakin' Goin' On.":D
Click to expand...

Only landed there once, but can't remember if there were restrictions other than that RP* traffic pattern ... I hear KABQ RWY 3 can get some pretty nasty CAT shear off the mountain but have never landed there ...
 
My first 400 hours were on a home airstrip 1800' long, grass in summer, snow/ice in winter. There are no numbers, or 1000' markers. Especially in winter, you landed with your airpeed dead on, and as soon as possible. Once that is ingrained into a pilot, its difficult to float over a thousand very useable feet of perfectly good runway.
 
Whitney said:
My first 400 hours were on a home airstrip 1800' long, grass in summer, snow/ice in winter. There are no numbers, or 1000' markers. Especially in winter, you landed with your airpeed dead on, and as soon as possible. Once that is ingrained into a pilot, its difficult to float over a thousand very useable feet of perfectly good runway.
Click to expand...
Even when you’re required to land on the 1000 ft markers, floating 1000 feet isn’t an acceptable way to get there.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Even when you’re required to land on the 1000 ft markers, floating 1000 feet isn’t an acceptable way to get there.
Click to expand...

:) The first time I landed at an airport with around an 800' displaced threshold, for tree clearance for IFR, being used to a 2200' strip, I was all set to set it down on the end. A voice in the intercom from the back seat said "hey Tom, you know this is displaced, right?". "Yep!" I didn't float the 1000', I flew it, about 20 feet off the ground, I think.
 
My training was if you were not on the ground in the first 50' you messed up, so try again. 26 years later, I still hate wasting even 100' of perfectly good runway, even if its paved and 3000', 4000', 5000, 6000' or more long.
If going somewhere that has two choices, for example 5000' asphalt, and 2500' grass, I will choose the grass, unless it has a bad crosswind, and the asphalt has less. Grass makes me feel better, no I don't know why.
 
EdFred said:
There is that, but when the fuel pumps are 8000' down the runway like they used to be at SAW before they shortened the runway, I would start my descent from TPA over the numbers.
Click to expand...


I'm aware of flaws in my thinking at airports with massive runways.
But my brain has difficulty in letting go of initial training.
 
Albany Tom said:
Huh. I've never done it as an intentional step. Just checked the POHs for the various PA-28's I've flown - cherokee, archer, arrow, dakota, it's not in there. RPM up, mag check, carb heat or alt air check, vacuum check, prop check as applicable, oil temp and pressure, back down. Nothing about checking idle.
Click to expand...

I’m one of those CFIs who was taught it and now teaches it. Some planes do have it on the checklist.

A lot of checklists don’t have oil temp in the green, but it’s still important.
 
MauleSkinner said:
No, not just for airliners.

Anyone checking under an ATP ACS has them as the touchdown requirement, and there comes a point long before you get even to small corporate jets that ensuring a stabilized (and comfortable for the passengers) approach has you continuing down the electronic glide slope/glide path rather than making abrupt changes in flight path to land shorter.
Click to expand...

Do performance numbers for jets reflect a touchdown in the touchdown zone, or planting it on the numbers? Like say you’re right on the margin if being able to land on a runway if its wet, if you touch down on the 1000’ers are you technically giving yourself less than the required amount of runway?

I’ve asked a bunch of people this and no one seems to have an answer for me, other than “it’s fine” well yes, it is obviously fine, but I still want to know.
 
Performance numbers are predicated on landing in the touchdown zone at or beyond the thousand foot marker.

And if one were to float beyond the 3000 foot marker, one is expected to execute a go around.
 
DavidWhite said:
Do performance numbers for jets reflect a touchdown in the touchdown zone, or planting it on the numbers? Like say you’re right on the margin if being able to land on a runway if its wet, if you touch down on the 1000’ers are you technically giving yourself less than the required amount of runway?

I’ve asked a bunch of people this and no one seems to have an answer for me, other than “it’s fine” well yes, it is obviously fine, but I still want to know.
Click to expand...
Generally a 3-degrees glidepath to 50 feet, thrust idle, Vref over the end of the runway, which has you touching down close to the 1000-ft markers with “minimal flare”.

I have seen some charts that use a 3.27-degree glidepath to touch down a couple hundred feet shorter, but I’m not sure how practical that would be in the real world.
 
Last edited:
DavidWhite said:
Do performance numbers for jets reflect a touchdown in the touchdown zone, or planting it on the numbers?
Click to expand...
I fairly sure the performance is based on aiming fore the 1,000' fixed-distance markers and touching down at the 1,500' point. Failing to touchdown by the end of the touchdown zone is a mandatory go-around. We have some short-runway destinations where the mandatory go-around point is reduced. Those are special qualification airports.
 
Larry in TN said:
I fairly sure the performance is based on aiming fore the 1,000' fixed-distance markers and touching down at the 1,500' point. Failing to touchdown by the end of the touchdown zone is a mandatory go-around. We have some short-runway destinations where the mandatory go-around point is reduced. Those are special qualification airports.
Click to expand...
Maybe the case for Boeing/Airbus-sized airplanes and/or operator-specific data & procedures, but not for the smaller jets that I’m familiar with.

edit: the “maybe” isn’t “maybe you’re right”, but “maybe the dividing line is somewhere around there.”
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
Maybe the case for Boeing/Airbus-sized airplanes and/or operator-specific data & procedures, but not for the smaller jets that I’m familiar with.

edit: the “maybe” isn’t “maybe you’re right”, but “maybe the dividing line is somewhere around there.”
Click to expand...
The only corporate airplanes I flew that were not planned on the 50’ at threshold were turboprops. The jets have all been the same.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The only corporate airplanes I flew that were not planned on the 50’ at threshold were turboprops. The jets have all been the same.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the difference in touchdown point…1000’ vs 1500’ or maybe more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top