consequence of landing on a displaced threshold?

[HavaJava]

I was curious as to if there would be any repercussions from landing before the displaced threshold of a runway. Is it TCs jurisdiction to violate people who land before displaced thresholds or is the displaced threshold more of a suggestion than a hard rule?

[hz2p]

.

[DA900]

hz2p smartass comment aside (good one still) yes you can land beside a runway. ATC won't clear you to do it because they do not want any responsibility if some thing goes wrong. It was quite common in Villeneuve as I remember.
As for landing long or short of the threshold I personelly have done both but always let ATC know what you are doing. They may want you to land long as they may have other aircraft to depart where you may want to exit, traffic for an a immediate depature, or traffic close behind. The threshold as I believe is so you can maintain a 3 degree slope without diving for the runway as you land 1000ft beyond it.
Now I sure someone will dig out some CAR that pertains to it and throw water over my post. Oh well IMHO

[Right Seat Captain]

At least for private operations, you can land just about anywhere you want, as long as it's safe (and the owner of the land doesn't charge you with tresspassing). At CYRO, during the winter, the middle of the field is commonly used for ski operations by private aircraft (not the school's). It's at their own risk, and it is not registered (ie not in the CFS).

But if sea plane pilots can land on just about any water they want, and any Joe can make an airfield out of his property, why couldn't someone land short of the threshold? How many people have, or have seen someone land short of the paved portion of the runway, and touched down on the grass/dirt, or even busted through some threshold lights? (Not me!)

[200hr Wonder]

Well let us not forget that the condition of the displaced threshold is entirely unknown. It may just be a think layer of asphalt, that a reasonably sized plane could bust through and cause lord knows what kind of damage to the gear. It could have runway lights. It could have lots of frost heaves or any number of things that make it unsuitable for landing in a serviceable airplane. Why land short when you have a perfectly good runway 300ft further down?

Legally speaking? Well assuming the operator of the aerodrome gives you permission it would follow that TC can't bite you for that.

[Cat Driver]

Havajava :

By displaced threshold I assume you mean runway markings down runway from the begining of the paved portion?

For instance here in Nanaimo we have a displaced threshold one thousand feet down runway 34, however nothing in law prevents you from landing on the first one inch of pavement...

Cat

[Gand]

Don't confuse "Chevrons" with "Displaced Runway Arrows".

AIP AGA 3.0 will answer your question. A displaced threshold is common at airports with natural or man made obstacles that enter the approach or departure paths. This is marked by the "Displaced Runway Arrows", which is perfectly acceptable to use for the taxiing, takeoff, and the landing roll from the opposite direction. Landing in this area is also acceptable, but it's your responsibility to ensure obstacle clearance.

Chevrons on the other hand, indicate pavement that can't be used for any aircraft movements. This is where you run into "pre-threshold" areas and stopways, which could be used in the event of an abandoned take-off, but don't assure load-bearing pavement.

Gand

[Right Seat Captain]

Also note the difference between Re-located threshold and displaced threshold. In my experience, the displaced threshold, where you find the arrow leading to the actual threshold is usually in place due to something on the approach path, perhaps trees or noise abatement. Re-located thresholds, where there are Xs prior to the actual threshold is often due to some work being done, or poor condition of the runway at that point. That's why it's considered safe to take off from the beginning of the displacement in a displaced threshold to maximize the runway available for T/O, but you would generally aim to land on the actual threshold instead.

The chevrons, called a Stopway, are not considered good to land or even taxi over for whatever reason. But in the event of a bad situation like a long landing, can save your nuts.

[yycflyguy]

The chevrons, called a Stopway, are not considered good to land or even taxi over for whatever reason. But in the event of a bad situation like a long landing, can save your nuts.

Phew, I hate loosing my nuts.

[Vref plus 10]

Go read the A.I.P.

[Right Seat Captain]

Go read the A.I.P.

The AIP is not a legal document.

[Tango01]

Do not land "on the arrows" they are there to provide obstacle clearance to 4 miles out. Yellow Chevrons or stopways are not suitable for normal landings, but I don't see a penalty for choosing to land on it. You can pretty much land anywhere you want.

[Croissant Wrench]

Watch for FOD on a displaced threshold because the surface isn't maintained!!!

[J.P.WISER]

What about a ten thousand foot runway notam'ed to 7500 feet does that mean you can land on the 2500 feet that is under repair. I don't think so that would be concidered a displaced threshold.

[nite raider]

Gand has it right on, and don't kid yourself about the legality of the AIP.

Although the AIP is not an enabled document, you can rest assured that in the absence of a specific regulation it will be the reference of choice in any legal proceedings. Goes something like this..."Surely Captain Thrustlever, you didn't ignore this wonderful guidance that is issued to every licenced pilot in Canada...did you??? And what source of information did you use in its place, or did you just make up your own?" (squirm, clear throat nervously, dab sweaty forehead with kleenex...start babbling like Porky Pig).

The warning about FOD on the displaced threshold surface is false. The displaced portion is fully maintained just like the rest of the runway as it is used for taxi, takeoff and landing rollout on the reciprocal runway.

When a 10,000 foot runway is NOTAMed to 7500 feet, the unusable 2500 feet is typically described as CLOSED and that portion of the runway is not available for taxi, takeoff or landing...the NOTAM should be specific about this. The unusable portion is marked with an X indicating that the area is not suitable for aircraft use, and a temporary threshold marking is located at the "new" runway threshold.

[hz2p]

Dumb question: what CAR would you be charged with violating?

I do not know of a CAR that says that every pilot must comply with the AIP.

[TTail]

Guys&gals, refer to your reading materials....

"A displaced threshold is a runway threshold located at a point other than the physical end of the runway. The portion of the runway so displaced may be used for takeoff but not for landing. Landing aircraft may use the displaced area on the opposite end for roll out."...

Notice on an airport diagram, the full length of the rwy is depicted alongside the rwy itslef, but in the event of displaced thresholds, somewhere on the page there will be sidenotes that say "AVAILABLE LANDING DISTANCE" for each rwy and of course are LESS than the rwy length depicted.

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about here but "Avail. Landing Distance" should be easily interpreted as how much runway is available to you for a landing!

Now in terms of legalities, I'm not going to argue that angle because I haven't seen anywhere where it says YOU CANNOT LAND ON THE AREA PRIOR TO DISPLACEMENT, but my question is why would you? Especially considering that there are reasons they displace the thresholds. Yes I know that sometimes the reason has nothing to do with the rwy itself but obstacle clearance during the approach angle to the numbers but how can you be sure every time?

I don't risk it.

[Cat Driver]

So in the case of runway 34 at Nanaimo with a displaced threshold 1000 feet from the start of the runway if I want to land my Piper Cub on the first three hundred feet and do a short 180 and taxi to my hangar that would be poor airmanship, and or illegal?

Cat

[TTail]

Cat,

As I stated, legalities are a different arguement in this topic as I have yet to see that reg. So poor airmanship, maybe, Illegal, No.

Take your case though specifically. Here is a person, familiar with their airport and runways, landing a light aircraft on a paved surface which is far superior to other surfaces that the cub is capable of landing on. Poor airmanship in this case, no I don't see why.

But take a corporate crew in a falcon 50 for example who travels to new airports every day. As I said, the reasons for displacement are numerous with some of them being fatigued or rough pavement, extension of runway approach lights, etc. Since the reasons are not known or depicted the majority of flight crews follow the "guideline" (as we're calling it now) and land where the runway is actually depicted/painted to begin.

[Cat Driver]

LJDriver:

Exactly..

Flying is all about knowing your limitations, the aircraft limitations and the rules and proceedures that each type of flying requires..

There is only one machine left that I would really like to fly and that is the US Space Shuttle, I was very fortunate to have flown two years with one of the Space Shuttle pilots and I was facinated by his stories....

...and the displaced threshold is the least of your worries landing that..

What most concerns you is sort of like sex..its a good re-entry that is utmost on your mind..

[TTail]

Glad to see you're still sporting the avatar!

[Cat Driver]

Yeh man, it's real neat...thanks.

[Vref plus 10]

The AIP will tell you exactly what you can do with this topic and can't, regardless of it's not a legal document. Well, I guess you can't use it to
decode weather packages then..... cause it's not a legal document.