I don’t think you are underthinking it at all. That is exactly what I meant by the post you quoted. “Minimum float” is less a goal than it is a result of good technique.
There's a lot of applicability to the distinction between goal and result. It's just an application of the difference between theory and practice.
I’ve been watching a lot of techniques the past two days watching the 36’s @ Osh. Some I probably can’t duplicate, some I wouldn’t want to.
Yes it is the published speed at a max weight of 2400 lbs. No, we are not at max weight but since there is no other published speed and no guidance given in the POH on how to reduce speed based on weight, we have been keeping our approach speed at 61.
That's helpful. Thank you.
"Minimum float" is not the same as "no float." You are doing fine. The rule of thumb is to touch down within the first third of the runway. If you float 500 feet past the threshold, that means you can land in the first third of a 1500' runway. You are well within standards.
If you float 500 feet, touch down within 200 feet beyond where the examiner specifies, and your touchdown point is within the first 1/3 of the runway, how is that not within standards?
what “rule of thumb” is being stated?
That may be because you are overthinking it. The lack of excessive float is the result of doing the rest correctly, not a parameter independent of context. Be on airspeed with a stable descent in the proper configuration, and your float will not be excessive. It’s not any more complicated than that. There’s no hidden meaning.
And the target point is where you say you are going to land. You need your wheels to touch on that point or no more than 200 feet past it. That is not the same as an aiming point.
No, that is not correct. Did you read the thread? You need to touch down within 200 feet of the intended touchdown point, not the aiming point. Do you understand there is a difference between the aiming point and the touchdown point?
You didn't. The post I was responding to did. Don't play dumb. Or are you not just playing?
Ignorance and incompetence are not the same as good judgment and decision making.
I get it. I'm not hung up on what "minimum float" means, although the FAA should define the term if they put the term forward. We as a community have had to define it for them.
Sounds like you quite successfully performed it. Not seeing what the problem is.
I don’t see a conflict between them.
I'm able to hit the touchdown point, but not consistently since I don't know what the hell I'm doing. Once I start getting down closer to the runway I just start juggling the throttle and pitch to make it work out. If I had to explain to someone what I'm doing, where I'm looking, how I'm setting myself up, I would have no explanation to give. There doesn't seem to be a procedure to follow other than to just shoot from the hip and "make it work".
Here's a couple conflicts:
That's basically how you do it. Throttle and pitch to hit your touchdown point. There's not a "procedure". Main difference between that and a regular landing is a bit slower/steeper and hitting a specific target within 200 feet. You are way overcomplicating it. You have to demonstrate mastery of the aircraft. A formulaic approach is fine as a foundation, but you'll need to adjust for wind, payload etc. Hint - the POH is not the place to look.
There has to be a procedure, at least for a no wind situation. I get having to adjust the procedure for varying condition, but nobody can even describe the procedure for calm wind day in a regular C172.
The "Aiming point" is a place where you aim so that you round out and touch down at the Target. Some people don't use an aiming point (me). You tell the DPE your target, he doesn't care what your aiming point is, just that you touch down on, or no more than 200 feet past your TARGET. What if you have a 5 knot head wind, 10 knot, 15 knot? What it there's a 45 degree cross wind? Each one of those will require adjusting your round out to hit the target. Stop thinking "procedure" and think "skill".
How do you do this without using an aiming point? What kind of aircraft are you in and can you describe it play by play?
The procedure has been described, but apparently it isn't specific enough for you. The reality is that a short field landing isn't that different from a normal landing. Perhaps you have a poor understanding of normal landings? No one here is likely to help you without flying with you. If you don't trust your CFI, get a different one.
Where does the technique specify a 50-ft obstacle?
The ACS says to consider, among other things, obstructions when selecting your aiming point. An obstruction is an obstacle.
So, as noted several pages ago, figure out where you touch down relative to your aiming point, and select your aiming point appropriately.
wherever it needs to be to touch down in the right place.
Don’t confuse procedure with technique. The procedure is to fly the appropriate speed and touch down at the appropriate spot. There are varying techniques to get there, and the ACS provides necessary flexibility for different techniques and different airplanes.
Here is my understanding of a normal landing:
Ok so how do you do your landings without using an aiming point?
I understand that. So then what is a good standard technique to get the job done in a C172 in a no wind condition?
Here’s a suggestion. Go do a bunch of laps worth of power off landings with your CFI. That’s power off when abeam the numbers. You get one notch of flaps in this exercise; use it smartly, if you need to use it all.
Or, just make your normal approach except use the short field speed.