Landing Before the Displaced Threshold

[pelmet]

Is it legal. I had thought that it was illegal based on how insistent instructors are. that being said, I can't remember if it was American ones or Canadian ones.

But based on the latest Aviation safety Letter, it appears to me that while it is not recommended, it is not illegal(aside from someone interpreting it as reckless).

Do you agree?

[rookiepilot]

Yes. I’ve always understood it to be legal.

[Roar]

Although not expressly against a regulation, a displaced threshold is put in place because of a hazard in the approach path or work on that portion of the runway.
The CAR’s do state that an aircraft must be flown in a safe manner, landing before a displaced threshold could be deemed to be in breach of that regulation.
As a Pilot in Command you have a duty of care to your passengers and the aircraft, and to do what a reasonable person would do in a similar situation, I’d argue a reasonable Pilot would know the safety reason for a displaced threshold and not land before it.
To ignore a displaced threshold would also open the pilot up to a Tort lawsuit if an accident were to happen and people were injured or the aircraft damaged as a result of that decision.

[CaptDukeNukem]

Why are you guys trying to land before the threshold? Aim for the boxes for Christ sakes.

[pilotidentity]

if the ASL says it’s legal then it’s legal . In some situations it might be safer to use it.

[CaptDukeNukem]

if the ASL says it’s legal then it’s legal . In some situations it might be safer to use it.

Please elaborate in which situation it would be safer to ignore the fact that a safety team at an airport already assessed the glide path and obstacle clearances and decided to move the threshold forward so pilots didn’t have to think.

Land past the line. Jesus.

[Cessna driver]

There's an airport I know of with a displaced threshold, 1095' displaced due to a large grain terminal on the approach. When said runway is icy, that displaced threshold makes the runway go from 3300' to almost 4500', giving more of a safety margin.

[CaptDukeNukem]

There's an airport I know of with a displaced threshold, 1095' displaced due to a large grain terminal on the approach. When said runway is icy, that displaced threshold makes the runway go from 3300' to almost 4500', giving more of a safety margin.

If you’re landing on a runway that is so icy that you need to go from 3300’ to 4500’ at the start of the pavement, you better ask yourself what you’re doing there in the first place.

That’s not a safety margin, that’s ignoring safety and trying to land a plane on a shortened runway in contaminated conditions

[pelmet]

"land on the boxes". There are no 'boxes on most of these runways.

Landing on icy runways happens quite frequently. Sometimes, those runways are even made of ice. It would not be unusual for a longer landing distance to be required.

Considering using the displaced threshold is a good idea although one would want to have a higher alert level and use some common sense. Is it possible that the runway conditions are not as good. But perhaps you departed from that airport and know the runway conditions. Certain aircraft types can also easily descend quickly after an obstacle. You would just want to make sure that you are extremely familiar with all obstacles as wires can be difficult to see.

Perhaps best only for airports that you are familiar with.

[flyinhigh]

Why are you guys trying to land before the threshold? Aim for the boxes for Christ sakes.

I never took anything in this discussion as trying to land before threshold, rather a legality question.

I do agree that if a runway is so icy that you need to land 1200' short of the threshold to maximize 4500' you probably shouldn't be there unless you're on fire.

Question for the group. Flown into YLW dozens of times, but never understood why 16 is displaced by such a large factor. Reason for it?

[cdnavater]

Why are you guys trying to land before the threshold? Aim for the boxes for Christ sakes.

I never took anything in this discussion as trying to land before threshold, rather a legality question.

I do agree that if a runway is so icy that you need to land 1200' short of the threshold to maximize 4500' you probably shouldn't be there unless you're on fire.

Question for the group. Flown into YLW dozens of times, but never understood why 16 is displaced by such a large factor. Reason for it?

That is purely obstacle related as far as I remember, the ILS is 3.2 degrees to the displacement. It is usable and included in the TORA from the both ends.
16 LDA 7839’, TORA 9039’
34 LDA 8361, TORA 8900’
I certainly wouldn’t dip below at night and always plan to touch down around the aiming point markings(boxes) but nothing unsafe about using it as extra runway per se.

[lownslow]

if the ASL says it’s legal then it’s legal . In some situations it might be safer to use it.

Please elaborate in which situation it would be safer to ignore the fact that a safety team at an airport already assessed the glide path and obstacle clearances and decided to move the threshold forward so pilots didn’t have to think.

Okie dokie, I know of at least one runway that had the displacement take away all but about the last eight hundred feet. It’s unlit, has no instrument approach, and the type of airplanes flying there were never really intended to have a long, flat approach. The trees and hill that created this displacement are far enough back that half the traffic turns final inside them. The rest come over the trees with a healthy margin of height and without anything dramatic maintain a constant slope from there to the near end of the runway. I’ve never known an airplane to hit the trees but more than one have gone off the far end while observing the displacement.

Would I do any of that on a normal day in someone else’s jet? Absolutely not. Light piston singles do want to be flown differently though, regardless of what the flight instructor with the FO stripes says.

[digits_]

if the ASL says it’s legal then it’s legal . In some situations it might be safer to use it.

Please elaborate in which situation it would be safer to ignore the fact that a safety team at an airport already assessed the glide path and obstacle clearances and decided to move the threshold forward so pilots didn’t have to think.

Land past the line. Jesus.

It's always safer not to fly. So that argument doesn't really help us out much.

The choice that pilots would have to make is not 'do i land before the treshold or after', but it's likely 'do I land before the treshold or do I cancel the flight'. So if it then turns out that it's legal to land before the displaced treshold, and you know that the displaced treshold is caused because of an obstacle on an IFR approach, and you are flying day VFR in great weather, then why not?

The ice on runway example is quite valid in that regards. If you need 2000 ft to land, the runway with displaced treshold is 3000 ft, and the full runway lenght is 4000 ft, then why wouldn't you use the full 4000 ft when there's a bit of snow on the runway? Again, if you know *why* the treshold was displaced.

There's no IFR / VFR displaced treshold distinction. And if it's legal, let the pilots make that distinction themselves.

[flyinhigh]

Why are you guys trying to land before the threshold? Aim for the boxes for Christ sakes.

I never took anything in this discussion as trying to land before threshold, rather a legality question.

I do agree that if a runway is so icy that you need to land 1200' short of the threshold to maximize 4500' you probably shouldn't be there unless you're on fire.

Question for the group. Flown into YLW dozens of times, but never understood why 16 is displaced by such a large factor. Reason for it?

That is purely obstacle related as far as I remember, the ILS is 3.2 degrees to the displacement. It is usable and included in the TORA from the both ends.
16 LDA 7839’, TORA 9039’
34 LDA 8361, TORA 8900’
I certainly wouldn’t dip below at night and always plan to touch down around the aiming point markings(boxes) but nothing unsafe about using it as extra runway per se.

Figured, just never felt terrain was an issue once established. Unlike terrace where there is a 1500’ hill short final.

Thanks,

[cdnavater]

if the ASL says it’s legal then it’s legal . In some situations it might be safer to use it.

Please elaborate in which situation it would be safer to ignore the fact that a safety team at an airport already assessed the glide path and obstacle clearances and decided to move the threshold forward so pilots didn’t have to think.

Land past the line. Jesus.

It's always safer not to fly. So that argument doesn't really help us out much.

The choice that pilots would have to make is not 'do i land before the treshold or after', but it's likely 'do I land before the treshold or do I cancel the flight'. So if it then turns out that it's legal to land before the displaced treshold, and you know that the displaced treshold is caused because of an obstacle on an IFR approach, and you are flying day VFR in great weather, then why not?

The ice on runway example is quite valid in that regards. If you need 2000 ft to land, the runway with displaced treshold is 3000 ft, and the full runway lenght is 4000 ft, then why wouldn't you use the full 4000 ft when there's a bit of snow on the runway? Again, if you know *why* the treshold was displaced.

There's no IFR / VFR displaced treshold distinction. And if it's legal, let the pilots make that distinction themselves.

As far as displaced thresholds are concerned, perhaps the reason for it could be a note on the charts, without the reason being notated we are left to using logic and good judgment.
I believe if a displaced threshold is not available for use, eg; cracked pavement, they would mark it appropriately.

[Eric Janson]

Landing prior to the threshold (displaced or not) will trigger an investigation.

It's considered to be an Incident.

Happened at my Airline.

It's not legal.

[CpnCrunch]

If you're referring to this incident:

https://avherald.com/h?article=49eb3f54

It was in Germany, and the touchdown was before the threshold (it was not displaced).

[digits_]

Landing prior to the threshold (displaced or not) will trigger an investigation.

It's considered to be an Incident.

Happened at my Airline.

It's not legal.

It's legal in Canada

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/public ... -threshold

If it were illegal, it would be safe to assume TC would have mentioned it instead of the 'at your own risk' paragraph.

[tsgarp]

Displaced thresholds are established when an obstacle penetrates the obstacle clearance surface for the normal three degree glide path. If you are flying something where obstacle clearance or the three degree glide path are critical, (heavy aircraft and/or IFR) then landing before the displaced threshold becomes a very bad idea. If you are flying something where visual obstacle clearance is possible, or the three degree glide path isn’t critical (light aircraft VFR), then landing before a displaced thresholds becomes less of a problem.

[draincena]

Looks like the wording in the AIM was quietly changed in AIM-2-2016 to no longer mention that: "In addition, this displaced portion of the runway may be used for landing"

This is the explanation of changes:

"The AGA chapter was updated and new graphics
were added to reflect the fifth edition of the
Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices
(TP 312)."
https://publications.gc.ca/collections/ ... -2-eng.pdf

Based on that, it seems like the exclusion from the AIM is the result of a change in recommendation of best practices rather than due to a change in regulations itself. However, TC has mentioned that just because it's legal doesn't mean a deviation from the best practices in the AIM would hold up in a tribunal, so use it at your own risk.

[digits_]

However, TC has mentioned that just because it's legal doesn't mean a deviation from the best practices in the AIM would hold up in a tribunal, so use it at your own risk.

That's a bit of a bizarre statement. What would be the legal basis for TC to fine you if they admit that what you did was not illegal?

[airway]

Landing prior to the threshold (displaced or not) will trigger an investigation.

It's considered to be an Incident.

Happened at my Airline.

It's not legal.

Are you talking about a internal company investigation or TSB?

It is legal to land on white arrows (not saying you should), but not on yellow chevrons. Maybe this was a yellow chevron issue?





.

[‘Bob’]

Yellow chevrons are stopways and aren’t rated for aircraft landings. Don’t land on those.

Displaced thresholds are fine. They are only displaced because there are obstacles that cut in to a 3 degree (or whatever the PAPI/ILS is set to) slope.

As most said, light aircraft can easily exceed that slope and the cool thing about obstacles in VFR is if they are moving down the windscreen.. you aren’t going to hit them (I remember a flight instructor during my CPL asking me how did I know I was going to clear the hill underneath me—are you kidding!?)

I know. Something something bad airmanship.

[pelmet]

if the ASL says it’s legal then it’s legal . In some situations it might be safer to use it.

Please elaborate in which situation it would be safer to ignore the fact that a safety team at an airport already assessed the glide path and obstacle clearances and decided to move the threshold forward so pilots didn’t have to think.

Land past the line. Jesus.

Interesting how these airline types flying large aircraft(jets) appear to have totally forgotten real world ops in small aircraft which can have very different operating characteristics and then give their condescending responses.

How many accidents due to overruns do we see because people landed on wet or slippery or even dry runways(quite a few) that were somewhat constrained in length. How many incidents can you name off the top of your head for someone landing on the displaced threshold.

Sure, if there is obviously no need to land earlier then there is no need to land earlier. But I am quite comfortable under certain situations to land before the displaced threshold at a familiar airport. In winter ops or night one might take that into consideration.

Reminds me of a general aviation airport that I have flown at that used to only have half the runway lighted for night ops(runway edge lights and VASI only. The lighting started more than halfway down the runway in the direction of most frequent use. Occasionally, someone would do an overrun(or flat spot their tires) as they aimed for the beginning of the runway edge lights and came in a bit high. Wiser pilots aimed for well before that latter part of the runway. Felt a bit unusual at first but worked well.

[co-joe]

https://x.com/Turbinetraveler/status/19 ... 2593470535

Not sure if the link will work, but it says it's a WestJet 700 landing short in Antigua in 2014. Watching this video I would have been pretty sure that was a no-no, but if it's not illegal then I guess it changes things?