Short field landing technique...am I being taught wrong?

[jconway2002]

Hello,

My CFI teaches me to pretend that my obstacle is at the end of the runway, and he always uses 100' instead of 50'. His short field technique is to fly an approach at 55 KIAS, then once over the obstacle bring power back to idle. At this point your 100' above the runway and you have to pitch down to maintain airspeed and then be sure to flare at the right time or you will either fly into the ground, or stall well above the runway. The plane seems to float pretty considerable using this method, and it is quiet difficult to perfect the flare timing. I thought I had it down, and then one day I couldnt get it right for the life of me.

I have read nothing in the AFH or the Jeppesen Pilot Maneuvers book that describes the technique my instructor teaches. A friend who uses the same CFI just had their checkride, and the DPE liked the technique...but is this really the proper method? I just postponed my checkride due to a lack of confidence in my short field landings, and I am just wondering if I am doing this the hard way?

EDIT:

Its a Cessna 152.

The POH procedure is:

1. Airspeed - - 60-70 KIAS (flaps UP)
2. Wing Flaps -- 30* (below 85 KIAS)
3. Airspeed -- Maintain 54 KIAS
4. Power -- Reduce to idle as obstacle is cleared
5. Touchdown -- Main wheels first
6. Brakes -- Apply heavily
7. Wing Flaps -- Retract

 

[MultiMediaWill]

Yea that's wrong. Also what plane are you training in? I'd hate to see you fly an approach at 55 KIAS in a King Air 350.

 

[brcase]

Your CFI's procedure seems to mirror the POH instructions you posted. If you have enough energy to float when you get to the ground you should be able to set it on reasonably nice.

It is a short field, not a soft field and the arrival might be more solid than your normal landings.

You might be coming in with a bit to much power. Fly the approach a bit higher with a bit less power then you don't have to reduce the power so much as you clear your obstacle.

You also might be diving a bit to much after you clear the obstacle, this will get you down quicker but you lose this advantage by floating in ground effect and having to time the round out more precisely due to the higher descent rate. Just pitch down slightly as you bring the power back to idle. You probably should not gain more than about 5kts if anything. But then you shouldn't really be looking at the Airspeed indicator at that point anyway.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[ChrisK]

Short fields often are tested at a particular point on the runway rather than right on the edge, so it is not uncommon to set up scenarios like the one listed I would think. At least, instructors at my school liked doing things like that.

 

[MAKG1]

Yea that's wrong. Also what plane are you training in? I'd hate to see you fly an approach at 55 KIAS in a King Air 350.

He said it's a 152, and 55 KIAS is not at all unreasonable. Maybe even slower if he's light (kinda hard to do in a 152).

Short field landings must always be made at the slowest safe speed. In your airplane, using all available flap, engine at idle, carb heat on.

The airplane will pitch down on its own when you pull the power. It's your job to keep it under control. When you "dive," the point is to keep from losing airspeed until you're in the flare. You do NOT want to GAIN airspeed. Not even 5 knots.

The point of pulling power over the obstacle is that this steepens your approach. This gives you the maximum amount of available runway after touchdown. If you get the airspeed up, you'll level it out, and shorten your available roll-out.

You should be able to make a normal landing with this technique as well, though it's at the low end of the approach speed. It's OK to leave some power in with a normal, and especially soft field, landing.

 

[flyingmoose]

Sounds like you are mirroring what the 152 manual says.

 

[MultiMediaWill]

He said it's a 152, and 55 KIAS is not at all unreasonable. Maybe even slower if he's light (kinda hard to do in a 152).

Short field landings must always be made at the slowest safe speed. In your airplane, using all available flap, engine at idle, carb heat on.

The airplane will pitch down on its own when you pull the power. It's your job to keep it under control. When you "dive," the point is to keep from losing airspeed until you're in the flare. You do NOT want to GAIN airspeed. Not even 5 knots.

The point of pulling power over the obstacle is that this steepens your approach. This gives you the maximum amount of available runway after touchdown. If you get the airspeed up, you'll level it out, and shorten your available roll-out.

You should be able to make a normal landing with this technique as well, though it's at the low end of the approach speed. It's OK to leave some power in with a normal, and especially soft field, landing.

He added that after my post... Anyways doesn't the PTS say 50' above the ground?

 

[MAKG1]

A thing to watch for -- the last step in the POH is to retract the flaps immediately after touchdown. Some instructors teach not to reconfigure the aircraft until off the runway -- it's unnecessary for a fixed gear, but it could be an issue for poorly designed retractibles.

During your checkride, the examiner will expect you to follow the POH, regardless of anything your instructor taught you. It is NOT an excuse that you were trained otherwise.

 

[MultiMediaWill]

A thing to watch for -- the last step in the POH is to retract the flaps immediately after touchdown. Some instructors teach not to reconfigure the aircraft until off the runway -- it's unnecessary for a fixed gear, but it could be an issue for poorly designed retractibles.

During your checkride, the examiner will expect you to follow the POH, regardless of anything your instructor taught you. It is NOT an excuse that you were trained otherwise.

Haha yea that awkward moment when you retract the gear instead of the flaps... well look on the bright side, you'll probably stop sooner in that case

 

[PilotAlan]

What he's teaching is an obstructed short field landing, which is different from a standard (unobstructed) short-field landing.

Also, the obstacle is the standard 50 foot tree or powerlines. How much clearance do you want from the obstruction? You will NOT be at 50, or you are hitting the tips of the trees. 100 feet seems reasonable. When you are actually looking at the 50ft trees in your way, you will probably end up at 80 to 100ft.

You will float a little bit, because you picked up a little energy pitching down. As you get better, you'll be able to manage energy so you don't float as much.

Sounds right to me. Have you talked to your CFI about it?

 

[wabower]

Has the PTS ever required a short-field landing without an obstruction? If so, I don't remember it.

What he's teaching is an obstructed short field landing, which is different from a standard (unobstructed) short-field landing.

Also, the obstacle is the standard 50 foot tree or powerlines. How much clearance do you want from the obstruction? You will NOT be at 50, or you are hitting the tips of the trees. 100 feet seems reasonable. When you are actually looking at the 50ft trees in your way, you will probably end up at 80 to 100ft.

You will float a little bit, because you picked up a little energy pitching down. As you get better, you'll be able to manage energy so you don't float as much.

Sounds right to me. Have you talked to your CFI about it?

 

[PilotAlan]

Has the PTS ever required a short-field landing without an obstruction? If so, I don't remember it.

I don't know. My ride was 21 years ago, and I honestly do not remember many of the things on the PTS.
My point was that there is a difference between short field and obstructed short field. I have done many short field landings, only a couple over an obstacle.

 

[ChrisK]

I don't know. My ride was 21 years ago, and I honestly do not remember many of the things on the PTS.
My point was that there is a difference between short field and obstructed short field. I have done many short field landings, only a couple over an obstacle.

One thing I will say is that a short field landing with no obstacle is quite easy if you're willing to accept a little more risk. Just approach a bit lower than usual and keep a bit more power in a 30* flap configuration slightly nose high at a lower airspeed. Make sure you're just above the ground as you cross the threshold. As soon as you pull your power you're down and stopped Horrible technique, and only useful in an environment where the PTS maneuver isn't.

The closer the obstacle is to the runway, the more challenging the maneuver. By putting the obstacle right on the threshold, the instructor is making the maneuver more challenging - stop as close to the threshold as you can!

I really need to go practice these. If it makes you feel better, they were the thing I was having the most trouble with, and my DPE never did one (he made me set up for the approach and then had me go around once he saw the approach was good).

 

[wabower]

The way I remember the maneuver being taught back in the day was with a constant but steep glide path using some power to maintain slower than normal airspeed while fully-configured for landing. If the obstacle was at the end of the runway, the constant glide path would cause the touch-down point to be at the far corner of the hypotenuse of a right triangle formed by rise-to-run distances.
The check-ride demo was easy, since it required only the ability to form the sight picture and use the power required to maintain the glide-slope to clear the imaginary obstacle.


At some point prior to CFI training, the desired method evidently changed to the one described in this thread, as I was required to learn the new version sometime in the 1970's IIRC. If a student was struggling with the new method that requires more control inputs, I would suggest trying the old method for a few laps to perfect the control inputs, then work into the new method using the non-power flare.

I don't know. My ride was 21 years ago, and I honestly do not remember many of the things on the PTS.
My point was that there is a difference between short field and obstructed short field. I have done many short field landings, only a couple over an obstacle.

 

[jconway2002]

Thanks everyone for your replies. The thing between the AFH and my instructors technique is that the AFH tells you to bring power to idle at flare out, and my instructors technique is to pull it over the obstacle. The AFH method results in a stabilized approach and my instructors results in the airplane diving. I guess the POH falls more in line with my instructors method though huh?

 

[wabower]

Not sure about the details, but the maneuver as being taught by your CFI isn't all that difficult once you get the hang of it. My guess is that someday soon you'll think your way through the sequence and necessary pattern of control inputs and go out and do them just fine. Then you'll be like the rest of us that struggled with some particular part of the PTS for longer than we'd like to admit and now can't even remember why.

Thanks everyone for your replies. The thing between the AFH and my instructors technique is that the AFH tells you to bring power to idle at flare out, and my instructors technique is to pull it over the obstacle. The AFH method results in a stabilized approach and my instructors results in the airplane diving. I guess the POH falls more in line with my instructors method though huh?

 

[Alexb2000]

One technique I like that seems to make it easier is to establish a steep glide slope as Wayne mentioned that will clear the obstacle. Then as soon as you clear slip to add drag and bring yourself down much steeper and thus shorter. Much more effective and stabilized than chopping power and diving IMO.

 

[EppyGA]

One technique I like that seems to make it easier is to establish a steep glide slope as Wayne mentioned that will clear the obstacle. Then as soon as you clear slip to add drag and bring yourself down much steeper and thus shorter. Much more effective and stabilized than chopping power and diving IMO.

OMG...slip!

 

[jconway2002]

Not sure about the details, but the maneuver as being taught by your CFI isn't all that difficult once you get the hang of it. My guess is that someday soon you'll think your way through the sequence and necessary pattern of control inputs and go out and do them just fine. Then you'll be like the rest of us that struggled with some particular part of the PTS for longer than we'd like to admit and now can't even remember why.

Thanks. I had struggled with the maneuver, then I had it nailed down, scheduled the checkride, and now I lost it again. Doh! I was just hoping for a more scientific reason to why I was having trouble, instead of just admitting it was me.

 

[bigring]

Thanks. I had struggled with the maneuver, then I had it nailed down, scheduled the checkride, and now I lost it again.

It's amazing. A friend of mine with 4,000 hours in type was just saying, "I've gone 12 month landing this baby like a March snowflake, and now I can't put the ***** on the deck without breaking the squat switches. Did I land or were we shot down?"

Comes and goes. It comes and goes.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sounds like you are mirroring what the 152 manual says.

I agree. And yes, it does require some practice to get the timing right on the flare.

 

[poadeleted20]

Anyways doesn't the PTS say 50' above the ground?

No, it does not. No obstacle height is specified in the PTS. The only requirement for 50-foot obstacles is in the obstacle clearance data for takeoff and landing in the POH, as specified in Part 23. Believe me -- not all runway obstructions are 50 feet high, and you need to know how to get over whatever it really is.

 

[poadeleted20]

Has the PTS ever required a short-field landing without an obstruction? If so, I don't remember it.

There is nothing about obstructions in the Private PTS Short-Field Landing Task beyond the following:

Considers the wind conditions, landing surface,

obstructions, and selects the most suitable touchdown​

point.

So, whatever obstructions are there must be considered, but there is no requirement to have an obstruction in order to complete the Task.

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks everyone for your replies. The thing between the AFH and my instructors technique is that the AFH tells you to bring power to idle at flare out, and my instructors technique is to pull it over the obstacle. The AFH method results in a stabilized approach and my instructors results in the airplane diving. I guess the POH falls more in line with my instructors method though huh?

In a 152, pulling the power to idle as soon as you clear the obstacle is good. In a King Air, it might create a problem. So, know your plane and fly it by its own book, and your 152 book says idle after the obstacle.

 

[wabower]

How much latitude is permitted relative to the examiner's ability to create the obstacle scenario?

I've never received a de-brief of a candidate having been asked to demo dragging it over the fence.

There is nothing about obstructions in the Private PTS Short-Field Landing Task beyond the following:
So, whatever obstructions are there must be considered, but there is no requirement to have an obstruction in order to complete the Task.

 

[mchesney]

For short-field landings with an obstruction....it seems dragging it in on the backside of the powercurve is very effective but is that good practice?

 

[ChrisK]

For short-field landings with an obstruction....it seems dragging it in on the backside of the powercurve is very effective but is that good practice?

That is exactly what I am asking too, and it is how I was taught. Engine out and I'm down.

 

[Alexb2000]

That is exactly what I am asking too, and it is how I was taught. Engine out and I'm down.

Have you guys tried slipping as I mentioned earlier?

Much safer way to get really short over an obstacle.

 

[Ted]

One of the things with landings is that no two are ever the same. I've been taught a number of techniques and find each one is useful depending on the situation and also the aircraft. For the 152, I think that technique is fine. As you continue your flying career, you will learn more.

 

[wabower]

My answer is that you're right about the effectiveness of the technique but that it's not what the guy is working on to fill the square on the check-ride. And if you happen to be flying one of the Cessnas with the admonition against full-flap slips, you create another round of yip-yap about permissible technique.

Have you guys tried slipping as I mentioned earlier?

Much safer way to get really short over an obstacle.

 

[Alexb2000]

My answer is that you're right about the effectiveness of the technique but that it's not what the guy is working on to fill the square on the check-ride. And if you happen to be flying one of the Cessnas with the admonition against full-flap slips, you create another round of yip-yap about permissible technique.

I thought we'd moved from the checkride into practice?

No need to revisit the deadly Cessna slip w/ full flaps technique.

 

[Ted]

Anyone who doubts the effectiveness of slips with full flaps can speak with a few esteemed members of this board who witnessed me perform a slip with full (50 degree) flaps, gear down, throttles at idle not quite 4 years ago heading into Wings with the Aztec. A helicopter screwed up my pattern, and I went from 1000 ft AGL on short final to hitting the numbers. The helicopter pilot apologized to me for the screw-up (and admitted fault), and then said he thought I'd managed an effective glide ratio even lower than an autorotation.

 

[poadeleted20]

How much latitude is permitted relative to the examiner's ability to create the obstacle scenario?

Nothing in 8900.2 or the PTS on that. However, I suspect that reasonableness is part of the training DPE's undergo in Oklahoma City.

I've never received a de-brief of a candidate having been asked to demo dragging it over the fence.

They should not be asked to do that. Rather, they should be asked to demonstrate a short-field approach and landing, and then graded according to the PTS. Technique is left to the applicant's discretion, as long as it remains within those standards, which are:

Task F: Short-Field Approach (Confined Area—ASES) and
Landing (ASEL and ASES)
References: FAA-H-8083-3, FAA-H-8083-23; POH/AFM.​

Objective:

To determine that the applicant:​

1. Exhibits satisfactory knowledge of the elements related to a​

short-field (confined area ASES) approach and landing.​

2. Adequately surveys the intended landing area (ASES).

3. Considers the wind conditions, landing surface,

obstructions, and selects the most suitable touchdown
point.
4. Establishes the recommended approach and landing
configuration and airspeed; adjusts pitch attitude and power
as required.
5. Maintains a stabilized approach and recommended​

approach airspeed, or in its absence not more than 1.3 Vso

+10/-5 knots, with wind gust factor applied.​

6. Makes smooth, timely, and correct control application
during the round out and touchdown.

7. Selects the proper landing path, contacts the water at the

minimum safe airspeed with the proper pitch attitude for the
surface conditions (ASES).
8. Touches down smoothly at minimum control airspeed
(ASEL).
9. Touches down within the available runway or water landing
area, at or within 200 feet beyond a specified point, with no
side drift, minimum float, and with the airplane’s longitudinal
axis aligned with and over the runway center/landing path.
10. Maintains crosswind correction and directional control
throughout the approach and landing sequence.
11. Applies brakes (ASEL), or elevator control (ASES), as
necessary, to stop in the shortest distance consistent with
safety.
12. Utilizes after landing runway incursion avoidance
procedures.​

​

​

13. Completes appropriate checklist.​

So, given item 5, "dragging it in" low over the trees and then dropping it on doesn't seem to meet standards. However, using appropriate power to maintain a stablized approach that clears the obstacle until passing the obstacle, and then reducing power to idle from there to maximize the final glide angle and minimize the distance from obstacle to touchdown does.​

​

 

[MAKG1]

No need to revisit the deadly Cessna slip w/ full flaps technique.

It's not deadly. It's mildly annoying, and is very easily mitigated instantly by ending the slip.

And it's not prohibited, only "not recommended."

 

[Alexb2000]

It's not deadly. It's mildly annoying, and is very easily mitigated instantly by ending the slip.

And it's not prohibited, only "not recommended."

I know I was being facetious.

 

[mchesney]

It's not deadly. It's mildly annoying, and is very easily mitigated instantly by ending the slip.

And it's not prohibited, only "not recommended."

Sorry to veer off topic (or open a can of worms) but I was taught not to slip in full flaps with cessnas as well...thought it had to do with a tail stall. I would think losing that downward force on the tail would cause the nose to drop. So, what exactly happens and is it mitigated quickly enough to not be a problem close to the ground?

My apologies if this creates a string of non-productive, ego filled, rants.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sorry to veer off topic (or open a can of worms) but I was taught not to slip in full flaps with cessnas as well...thought it had to do with a tail stall. I would think losing that downward force on the tail would cause the nose to drop. So, what exactly happens and is it mitigated quickly enough to not be a problem close to the ground?

My apologies if this creates a string of non-productive, ego filled, rants.

The Cessna 172 (and only the 172) can in a few circumstances experience an oscillation in the elevator when slipping with full flaps. This is not a tail stall, and not a flutter (which is more severe in amplitude and much higher in frequency and involves the whole horizontal stab, not just movement of the elevator). I've never experienced this oscillation in 40-plus years of slipping 172's into short fields with full flaps (even with the full 40 degrees available in the legacy models), and I've only seen one report of it happening, but there it is.

If it happens, kick out of the slip and the problem ends immediately without any significant control issues or altitude loss.

 

[Alexb2000]

Tacking on to what Ron said. You also don't have to just hammer the rudder to the stops, even 1/4 to 1/2 rudder will bring you down much quicker and let you get a feel for it. You can dip your foot in the pool so to speak.

 

[Ted]

Tacking on to what Ron said. You also don't have to just hammer the rudder to the stops, even 1/4 to 1/2 rudder will bring you down much quicker and let you get a feel for it. You can dip your foot in the pool so to speak.

And as with any control inputs, smooth is better than jerky.

 

[poadeleted20]

Tacking on to what Ron said. You also don't have to just hammer the rudder to the stops, even 1/4 to 1/2 rudder will bring you down much quicker and let you get a feel for it. You can dip your foot in the pool so to speak.

That's aircraft-dependent. In an Aztec, with its huge rudder, that works. In a Grumman, a 1/4-1/2 rudder slip won't get you much at all. Know your plane, fly your plane -- and as Ted said, fly it smoothly.