short field landing (Stabilized Approach)

[Spinwmts]

Is anyone else having trouble with the new (ish) commercial test standards for short field landings? All of my life I have used power to precisely control where I land on the runway up to the point of flaring. Now they want a stable approach at 200' AGL which means "Appropriate power settings applied" prior to 200'. I've been told that this means "No power setting changes" with the exception of going to idle at the flare.

Is anyone else having issues with this? Are there any examiners out there who is applying this rule differently? Perhaps allowing for small power changes below 200' AGL?

[digits_]

I don't think small power changes are an issue. From what you describe, I have the impression they want to avoid people levelling of before the treshold and dragging it in, which is a technique that works really well but probably lead to some close calls during flight tests, when done improperly.

A bit like the obstacle on a short field landing, where a constant descent is also recommended, even though it's not how most pilots would fly such an approach when you really need it. It's a bit of a shame really.

[photofly]

The aim in question is to:
"safely execute a short-field approach over an actual or simulated obstacle and land on a specified touchdown point with a degree of accuracy, using the technique recommended by the POH/AFM" (my emphasis)

The criteria in question are:
(c)select the most suitable touchdown zone and specify a touchdown point in consideration of the obstacles to be cleared;
(d)execute the initial approach using recommended airspeeds and configurations;
(e)fly a stabilized final approach descent profile that clears any actual or simulated obstacle, and results in one of the following speeds at a height of 50 feetabove the threshold:
(h)touch down at the specified touchdown point (+100/–50 feet) in accordance with the POH/AFM

All of my life I have used power to precisely control where I land on the runway up to the point of flaring.

In so far as this is not a recommended technique in any Flight Manual or POH that I have read, this is not what is desired or required for this exercise.

If significant late power changes are required then a go-around is probably the best response; if that arises because of weather or other factors outside the candidate's control then he or she should not be penailzed; but you get a score of 4 on the short field landing for arranging the approach so as not to need significant power changes.

The pilot examiner manual says the following:

In assessing the candidate’s ability to land at a pre-determined touchdown point it is not intended that examiners turn this item into a spot landing exercise, rather to evaluate the candidate’s ability to land within a specified portion of the runway with a predictable degree of accuracy. The main aim of the item is to determine that correct procedures and techniques are used in addition to achieving some accuracy.

You are not required to precisely control where you land with the use of power; you are supposed to demonstrate you can use the correct procedures to set up an accurate landing.

PS ... you'll note there's no specific criterion for making it a particularly short landing....

[Spinwmts]

All of my life I have used power to precisely control where I land on the runway up to the point of flaring.

In so far as this is not a recommended technique in any Flight Manual or POH that I have read, this is not what is desired or required for this exercise.

I'm not talking about a significant power change but I've always adjusted power minimally to control my decent and hit my target flare point. However, I am being told that any adjustments (other than going to idle at the flare) is points off for the test flight and that is screwing me up a little bit. I'm wondering if in reality for the test flight if small power setting changes will be acceptable.

[photofly]

Think of it like this: the more you adjust the power, the less you have a stabilized approach and the more you deviate from the performance that is sought. What else are you hoping to hear?

[digits_]

You're not going to fail the exercise if you change the power on final. If you reduce a lot of power, and then a minute later you add that same amount of power again for no reason, you'll lose points.

If you have to adjust the power slightly to account for changing winds or to make a small correction, then that will be fine. Even during a stabilized approach you are constantly making small corrections (glide path, track, power changes). They are often so small you might not even know they are there.

Think about it this way: your hand is most likely on the thorttle anyway on final. If you move it gently and just a hair, the examiner might not even notice you move it, which is perfect: small smooth corrections to maintain a stable approach.

[7ECA]

Interesting that they halved the "overage" that is acceptable in making your touchdown zone, it used to be +200/-50.

[GoinVertical]

Think about it this way - on a perfectly calm day, with no wind from the surface up to circuit altitude, you should be able to set your power once for your aim point, trim for your speed, and the airplane should need no further adjustments until the flare.

Add the normal variation of wind with altitude, you will have to adjust the power a bit to keep your aim point steady. Add gusty winds you might have to adjust the power quite frequently to keep your aim point steady. There is nothing wrong with that.

I believe the goal of changing the standards is to stop students from chopping the power once they have "cleared the obstacle". The purpose of the exercise is to adjust your approach angle to clear the obstacle from the beginning, not clear the obstacle, then change the angle.

The flight test obstacle is normally a 50' obstacle at the threshold, and touchdown at the markers. A 3 degree slope that an airliner follows is already bringing them 50 feet over the threshold. Most folks approach a bit steeper in GA aircraft anyway, so there should really be no issue clearing that obstacle to begin with.

(If you ever get into real life short runways with obstacles you may very well see that there is a time and place for chopping the power once you clear the obstacle, as chances are most runways with trees or whatever that close in are short enough that you want to touch down before 1000' past the threshold. For various reasons, that's not what TC wants taught during PPL and CPL training, they want a constant angle, stable approach.)

[iflyforpie]

It’s how real short field landings are flown. The less you mess with the power, the less your airspeed and trim will be messed up. On slope, configured, on speed, and power adjusted for the conditions (wind, DA, etc) with only minor adjustments thereafter until it’s removed for landing.

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard someone say that they were going to go below slope “so they could land shorter” only to drag it in with tons of power and still float the thing for a few hundred feet because they carried too much power and didn’t have the benefit of a flare to dissipate energy.

[doiwannabeapilot]

+200/-50

damn. Right or wrong, in the US, it was +200/-0

Guys and gals were failing because they were 1 foot short of the 1000' paint.

[photofly]

In Canada, at any rate, you nominate your own touchdown point - see criterion (c).

Nominate your own touchdown point, then touchdown on it.

[Spinwmts]

Think of it like this: the more you adjust the power, the less you have a stabilized approach and the more you deviate from the performance that is sought. What else are you hoping to hear?

Well Put! I finding from my last flight if I make minor power adjustments or keep the power in a little longer on my flare if I'm short he's not saying much which reflects your point. At any rate I think I'm getting them down now. Can't wait to get this flight test done.

Thanks for all the other great advice folks.

[Arnie Pye]

I have done a considerable amount of off-strip flying in my career. A stabilized approach is what is done in bigger airplanes. I couldn't stand watching new FO's "chop and drop" then get unstable down low.
In the real world, which is paradoxically both what the test should be preparing candidates for and yet entirely removed from the theoretical world of flight instruction, a stable 3 degree stable approach is the goal. That will require power adjustments to maintain stability and slope. It would be pretty rare to hand fly any approach and not see some tweaking of the power up and down.

This probably doesn't help as I am not a flight instructor. Just a bored pilot with internet.

[trey kule]

Lets back up a bit here.

It is a short field approach and landing.
It is not the shortest landing possible.

If we consider non emergency landings, there has to be sufficient runway to take off again.

Typically, the ground roll on landing is shorter than the take off ground roll. The over obstacle distances are sometimes closer together.

With that in mind then, a short field landing based on takeoff and climb criteria usually has a bit of extra built in.
As such there is no need to chop and drop at all. Or drag it on way back on the power curve.

As to using the power. Of course. The point is not to be pumping the throttle up and back as a substitute for poor approach skills. But if you, for example cross over a cold or hot spot on the approach, a little power adjustment actually keeps the approach stabilized.

I think more than a few instructors have watched Alaska spot landing competitions on youtube, and have confused that with normal short field landings.

[digits_]

If we consider non emergency landings, there has to be sufficient runway to take off again.

Yes, but not necessarily with the same conditions.

Land at max weight and take off near empty.

Land as short as possible on skis on the small strip next to your AMO to install the wheels.

Land in zero wind on a hot day and wait for a 10kt wind on a cooler day to leave again.

I see value in landing on strips that are (simulated) shorter than your required takeoff run.

[trey kule]

Lets see. Instead of your examples.

Land almost empty. Take on fuel and a load

Land with 10kt headwind on a cool morning Take off in no wind.

You used examples that supported your conclusion that not using TO limitations is a good idea,

Typical, or normal are not something we very often see in internet discussions. Words like typical get missed. Teach the basics to make them safe, then let them go out and learn from experience.

I guess as long as your students credit card is not maxed out, you can do all sorts of short field training. All just a part of the 100 hr ppl Program, and instructor log book enhancement.
Probably good idea to also spend 10 hours doing every kind ofspin entry possible...even if it wont be on the flight test, or of any value to 95% ofstudents.

[digits_]

You used examples that supported your conclusion that not using TO limitations is a good idea,

I have no idea what conclusion you are referring to. I wrote that I see value in learning to land on a (simulated) runway length where you might not be able to take off again under those same conditions. Due to obstacles or weird noise abatement procedures you could also have much more runway length available for your take off run than for your landing.

Typical, or normal are not something we very often see in internet discussions. Words like typical get missed. Teach the basics to make them safe, then let them go out and learn from experience.

The part of your post I replied to did not include "typically". I was merely clarifying that you generally do want to take off again from a surface you land on, but as stated, not necessarily under the same conditions. That's an important distinction and invalidates the point you were trying to make.

I guess as long as your students credit card is not maxed out, you can do all sorts of short field training. All just a part of the 100 hr ppl Program, and instructor log book enhancement.
Probably good idea to also spend 10 hours doing every kind ofspin entry possible...even if it wont be on the flight test, or of any value to 95% ofstudents.

It takes the same amount of time to attempt to teach someone to land land as short as possible or try to achieve maximum accuracy while training.
Do you send students to the flight test if they consitently touch down 199 ft past the intended touch down point? Do you tell your students to apply maximum braking without skidding on short field landings or are you happy with a touchdown at 199 ft and just let it roll "because you need that distance to take off anyway".


As an after thought, the more powerful your airplane is, typically, the closer your take off distance will get to your landing distance. It might even be significantly shorter. If you want to fly the plane to the limits of its performance envelope, you'd really need to learn to touch down accurately. That's definitely something that needs to be covered during PPL training.

[photofly]

Popcorn is on me, folks.

[tsgarp]

Think of it like this: the more you adjust the power, the less you have a stabilized approach and the more you deviate from the performance that is sought. What else are you hoping to hear?

Stabilized approach means speed, glide path and descent rate are all within specified parameters. Most company’s SOPs will specify these, e.g. speed +10/-5 of V approach, on stable 3 degree glide path, and descent rate not greater than 500 FPM by 500’ AGL. You use power to achieve this. Large aircraft will maintain V approach until about 1/2 to 1/4 mile final then reduce power slightly to cross the threshold at Vref.

So, anybody that tells you small power adjustments on final constitute destabilization may not really understand what is going on.

[photofly]

Regardless of anyone's SOPs, in the context of CPL flight training and testing, stabilized approach has a strict definition in the flight test guide:

Stabilized approach – VFR (Generic Description)
On the correct final approach flight path:

Briefings and checklists complete;
Aircraft must be in the proper landing configuration appropriate for wind and runway conditions;
Appropriate power settings applied;
Maximum sink rate of 1,000 feet per minute;
Speed within +10/-5 knots of the reference speed;
Only small heading and pitch changes required;
Stable by 200 feet AGL.

My emphasis.

If you're making large power adjustments then you don't have "appropriate power settings applied", and large power adjustments shouldn't be needed to maintain a stable approach.

This still applies: you get a score of 4 on the short field landing for arranging the approach so as not to need significant power changes.