taking my checkride today, or tomorrow

[SportPilot]

.......

[designrs]

I used to be a put it on the number type of guy. That was until a person who knew much more about aviation than I did told me, there are far more accidents with airplanes clipping the end of the runway or coming up short trying to hit the numbers than those who are trying to hit a spot a little farther down the runway.

Really good point not often heard. I clipped a runway edge quite some time ago as a student practicing short-field. I just misjudged the sink rate, never saw it coming and was actually shocked when it happened. Come to think of it, there was actually a displaced threshold too. What a case!! Fortunately no damage.

Thinking back about it, I realize I was fixating on the point before the runway and that's exactly what I got!

Fortunately skills have come a long way since then. Recently I've been working to get "on the numbers" again.
Good to remember to keep it in perspective. Thanks.

[zaitcev]

A big advantage of slip is that you can take it out at any moment, like spoilers or brakes. Now you're in a slip, now you aren't. But if you do that with flaps, your Cl is going to fall, AoA increase, and you're going to start settling a lot. You may even stall, if the AoA increase goes beyond critical.

[drseti]

Pete, I teach my students that once you extend flaps, they stay extended until after you've landed and cleared the runway, or until after you've established a positive rate of climb at the proper speed in a go-around. If you extend flaps prematurely on an approach, you either add some power to reduce your rate of descent, or you add full power and go around. Retracting the flaps once they've been extended is not an option.

[SportPilot]

.......

[CTLSi]

......

[Jack Tyler]

When I fair the curve on comments about slips in this thread, what I see is that more experienced pilots see the broader, appropriate and helpful uses of a slip and less experienced pilots have a narrower view of the slip's utility and, for some a/c, its necessity. Personally, I would hate to give up the occasional usefulness of slipping the a/c on final. I think it would make me a less safe pilot.

I'm also not a fan of always choosing to avoid landing on the numbers. Partly that's because my home airport's main runway is 4000' long with the prevailing wind usually meaning my only taxiway turnoff is 1500' down the runway. So I either make that taxiway - without tire scrubbing and burdening the brake pads - or I accept the 2500' additional runway, perhaps mess with the approach of the guy behind me, and extend the taxi back to the fuel farm. More importantly, it is excellent and necessary practice for those times I truly need to land on the numbers (aka: use all the runway available). Any mountain flying course, where short runways are assumed, will usually start the curriculum by refining this practice, in high DA conditions to boot. Conditions, runways and airport surroundings vary so much that attempting to always land on the numbers would no doubt be foolish. Similarly, it seems to me that always avoiding the goal of landing on the numbers is to tie one hand behind one's back. But perhaps for folks without the constraints I sometimes face, it could always appear an unnecessary risk. Goes to show how the kinds of flying we do can be so varied.

[FastEddieB]

Just to put this in perspective.

I enjoy landing at a certain chosen spot. Often that spot is the numbers.

And I've gotten fairly proficient at it.

I would guess that over my career, I've probably made at least 20,000 landings. I can recall exactly one, on RWY 9R at Opa Locka, where in trying to show off I came up maybe a foot short of the pavement in a Citabria (I think) and kicked up some gravel.

I would encourage everyone to practice spot landings, but initially that spot can be farther down the runway. For most beginners I would have them aim at the numbers on final approach, realizing that the roundout and flare will take them well beyond the numbers by the time the wheels are on the ground - like the first landing in the video below.

Having the plane touch down at or near a full stall on the numbers requires the roundout and flare begin well short of the runway. This takes skill and finesse, but I think it's a skill worth having.

The second landing in this video shows at LSA speeds it does not have to seem risky - there's a lot of runway available before the actual numbers:

http://youtu.be/pVW9JVNdMWw

The second landing, beginning around 1:40, is the one I'm referring to - the first, at Rutherford County, is more typical.

BTW, for those not familiar, Commercial Applicants must demonstrate the ability to land, power off, and to...

"Touch(es) down in a normal landing attitude, at or within 200 feet beyond the specified touchdown point."

IOW, 200' beyond is a pass. 1" short is a fail!

[designrs]

Having the plane touch down at or near a full stall on the numbers requires the roundout and flare begin well short of the runway. This takes skill and finesse, but I think it's a skill worth having.

So how do you do that safely? How do you aim for the grass, when you know you'll be landing further down on the numbers… without messing up and running a high risk of landing before the runway?

(I came up short before the runway once as a student. Never saw it coming! I'm sure I'm better now, but I think. What's the risk of doing that again? One in 200? One in 20,000?)

[FastEddieB]

So how do you do that safely? How do you aim for the grass, when you know you'll be landing further down on the numbers… without messing up and running a high risk of landing before the runway?

Again, take a look at the second landing in the linked video.

It's all about energy management. Once a pilot has a good sense of lift/energy remaining, he or she should be able to sense intuitively and instinctively how far that energy will take them in the flare.

But...

Most Conservative Action rule applies - if at all in doubt...don't! Practice using defined points farther down the runway. Small airports probably would not mind if you used a bag of flour to define a "displaced threshold" to practice with.

[designrs]

Nice videos Eddie.
Damn!! Both of those approaches and landings look very low to me.
I guess if I did just half of that it would be safe and shorter.
Maybe I will ease into it gradually.

[designrs]

What about glideslope with PAPI? Surely you would be waaay below it.

[FastEddieB]

Nice videos Eddie.
Damn!! Both of those approaches and landings look very low to me.
I guess if I did just half of that it would be safe and shorter.
Maybe I will ease into it gradually.

I meant to add a caveat:

My approaches tend to be quite steep and power off by short final, often so high I have to slip a little, and those approaches were like that.

The wide angle of the GoPro flattens out the perspective enormously, making approaches look way too low - these weren't.

In a minute I'll link to a little video I did comparing GoPro fields of view.

Here you go: http://youtu.be/HhycU4UV90k

I did my best to make all three approaches identical. On the last one, in particular, if you watch the ball you can see the tiny amount of slipping I use to "fine tune" the final approach once the power is off.

[FastEddieB]

What about glideslope with PAPI? Surely you would be waaay below it.

Yes, but only at the end, as necessary for landing.

I consider a 3° glideslope waaay to shallow for normal VFR arrivals. It virtually assures an off-airport landing if the power fails.

Anyway, still the open invitation to come to the N GA mountains to play!

[3Dreaming]

Having the plane touch down at or near a full stall on the numbers requires the roundout and flare begin well short of the runway. This takes skill and finesse, but I think it's a skill worth having.

Touching down at the beginning of the third runway stripe takes just as much skill and finesse, but doesn't come with the same risk. This is the point I was trying to get across, and also the one that was relayed to me by the old aviator.