Long Landing Thread

[pelmet]

On some runways, you just don't mess around with anything other than a little bit of float(and it can be a good idea to specifically mention that to yourself if not used to short runways), while other runways have more margin and a continuing analysis on final/in flare is required.

This example would encompass the former......

"The pilot of C-FYFY, a Cessna 172P aircraft departed Brampton (CNC3) ON, with one passenger,
also a pilot onboard. The 2 pilots were going to fly locally and practice some inflight emergencies.
The aircraft flew to Burbank Field (CNN3) near Shelburne, ON and conducted a simulated forced
approach to Runway 08, but did not land. The aircraft came around again for a second approach
and attempted to land on Runway 08. The aircraft floated approximately 1600 feet down the 2000
foot runway before touching down. The pilot realizing the aircraft could not be stopped in the
remaining 400 feet applied full power and attempted to take off. It was reported that the aircraft
speed was low during take-off, and near the aerodynamic stall speed as the pilot attempted to clear
trees approximately 375 feet from the end of Runway 08. When the aircraft was just above the tree
tops it stalled aerodynamically and crashed in the forest. Both pilots exited the aircraft with no
injuries. There was significant damage to the aircraft."

[pelmet]

"C-FQZM, a privately registered Piper PA-28-180, was conducting a visual flight rules flight from
Arnprior/South Renfrew Municipal Airport, ON (CNP3) to Toronto/Buttonville Municipal Airport, ON,
(CYKZ) with the pilot and 2 passengers on board. While enroute, the pilot made a decision to divert
and land at the Stirling Airport, ON, (CPJ5) due to inclement weather enroute. As the pilot
attempted to land on Runway 27, the aircraft continued to float down the runway. A go-around was
attempted however, the aircraft did not perform as expected in the hot weather. The pilot made the
decision to reduce engine power and land straight ahead. The aircraft touched down with
approximately 300 feet of runway remaining and overran the runway by approximately 200 feet,
coming to rest in a wooded area. There were no injuries. The aircraft propeller and nose landing
gear were damaged."

[pelmet]

No mention of which runway it was. But 4 out of 6 possibilities are just over 2400' long which is not the type of runway where you want to land long when it is a wet runway. Not unexpected for a student to come in high, why not just get the student to practice their go-arounds and get into the students head that you don't accept long landings on runways short for aircraft type, especially when wet......

"C-FNJB, a Cessna 172P operated by Canadian Flight Centre, was conducting circuit training at Pitt
Meadows (CYPK), BC with 1 instructor and 1 student on board. The exercise being conducted
prior to the occurrence was practice forced landings. The aircraft's profile on final was higher than
the anticipated flight path and the aircraft touched farther down the runway than was desired. On
touchdown, the instructor took control of the aircraft and applied the brakes but unlike the previous
landing on the wet runway, the braking action was poor. The PIC determined that conditions did
not permit a go around. The aircraft overran the end of the runway, traversed a 250 foot grass field,
crossed a ditch, and came to rest in a field approximately 300 feet beyond the runway threshold.
The pilot shut down the aircraft and evacuated with the student. There were no injuries but the
aircraft sustained substantial damage to its propeller, engine cowling, windshield, lower fuselage,
and landing gear.

Maintenance crews recovered the aircraft and an aircraft maintenance organization will assess the
extent of the damage."

[DHC-1 Jockey]

When landing in YYZ on RWY 05 in the Dash-8 during my Jazz days, the controllers frequently gave the landing clearance as "Jazz 123, cleared to land RWY 05, long landing approved." As a former controller trainee, I wonder what would happen if there was a runway over-run. Even though almost every Dash requested and did the long landing on 05, I'm just thinking of the implications of the controller "volunteering" the long landing offer if the flight crew didn't specifically request it, and an over-run incident occurred.

[Canoehead]

Thankfully that past practice has ended (Jazz pilots side). Landings are to be completed in the touchdown zone or a commence a go-around.

[A346Dude]

When landing in YYZ on RWY 05 in the Dash-8 during my Jazz days, the controllers frequently gave the landing clearance as "Jazz 123, cleared to land RWY 05, long landing approved." As a former controller trainee, I wonder what would happen if there was a runway over-run. Even though almost every Dash requested and did the long landing on 05, I'm just thinking of the implications of the controller "volunteering" the long landing offer if the flight crew didn't specifically request it, and an over-run incident occurred.

The new MATS rule is a long landing cannot be approved unless it is requested by the pilot.

[digits_]

The new MATS rule is a long landing cannot be approved unless it is requested by the pilot.

Does it *need* to be approved? Which rule would you be violating if you touched down in the second half of the runway instead of the touchdown zone after you were "ceared to land"?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

The new MATS rule is a long landing cannot be approved unless it is requested by the pilot.

So it's essentially the "contact approach" of landing clearances? Lol.

[Zaibatsu]

The new MATS rule is a long landing cannot be approved unless it is requested by the pilot.

Does it *need* to be approved? Which rule would you be violating if you touched down in the second half of the runway instead of the touchdown zone after you were "ceared to land"?

I’m not sure if there’s a rule per se. You won’t get violated by floating down most of the runway. As least not by TC. but it’s not conducive to HIRO. It takes a lot longer to clear the runway after a long landing than it does to land in the TDZ and take even the last high speed that doesn’t require a reverse.

Maybe there’s a new MATS that says it, but I constantly hear it offered. Same with contact approaches I guess. Preemptive offering. But If you can’t do it, don’t do it. It’s that simple.

Don’t think that no long landings make you safer. you can run a Dash 8 off 10,000 feet of runway with the right pilot.

No more circling. Spraying in sunshine. No long landings. Too bad everything has to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

[PilotDAR]

I was cleared to "land long" once. I was landing in Harare, where the runway is 16,000 feet long (from old BOAC Comet days, I was later told). It would be pointless to land a Twin Otter in the touchdown zone and then taxi it for three miles! I support the idea of the pilot knowing which portion of a whole runway is the appropriate part to use for the airplane they are flying. If a pilot can be trusted to accept an intersection takeoff, I don't see how choosing to land long is any different!

I've also been clear to land to hold short of an intersection, to me, that has the potential for a similarly bad outcome if not accomplished as intended.

[co-joe]

I used to like to fly 2 dots high on the gp. It made for a nice stable and predictable path for long landings in VMC. The days of FDM made that go away though.

[TheStig]

Not unexpected for a student to come in high, why not just get the student to practice their go-arounds and get into the students head that you don't accept long landings on runways short for aircraft type, especially when wet......

Agreed, the current practice at airlines is to perform a landing distance calculation for every landing. As part of the approach briefing runway references (markings, adjacent taxiways, etc) are discussed for the planned touchdown point and the touchdown point limit which is based on environmental factors and runway length, with a set limit regardless of those factors.

It sounds a little arduous but it isn't supposed to be something to 'brief to death' but rather to provide clarity to the PM what the PF is planing.

[Eric Janson]

Does it *need* to be approved? Which rule would you be violating if you touched down in the second half of the runway instead of the touchdown zone after you were "cleared to land"?

I'd be violating company SOPs.

I believe this is one parameter that is monitored so you'd get a call from the safety department as well.

[lhalliday]

Here at Kamloops we routinely land long on 09 - coordinated with FSS, of course - since the taxiway to the Flying Club ramp means you'll be rolling to the end of an 8000 foot runway. Stabilized approach (always!), pick and hit your touchdown point, all the usual stuff. Pilot decision making and all that...

...laura

[digits_]

Does it *need* to be approved? Which rule would you be violating if you touched down in the second half of the runway instead of the touchdown zone after you were "cleared to land"?

I'd be violating company SOPs.

I believe this is one parameter that is monitored so you'd get a call from the safety department as well.

You'd be violationg company SOPs for landing long without a a specific "landing long clearance"? I've heard of companies prohibiting it completely, I've never heard of one only allowing it with a specific clearance. Interesting! Do you know what the philosophy is behind that policy?

[telex]

"Touchdown"
"◇ The aircraft will be flown to land on the Touchdown Zone Markings. (TDZ)"
"◇ Touchdown should be at 1000ft or 300 metres from the threshold if TDZ markings are not available, to ensure landing performance."

Of course there is a difference between landing long in a DH8 vs a 777.

[karmutzen]

There's a difference between landing long in a DH8 vs a Super Cub. Especially if you are on Alaska Bushwheels and want to save as much rubber as you can on your asphalt landing. 8000' runway, if I'm exiting the end I'm going to touch down on the last 500'. Totally different in the paint-by-numbers performance-based airline world.

[pelmet]

The Guelph Flight Centre Cessna 172 (C-FWAZ) was on a local training flight with the instructor
and student on board. On approach to runway 24 at Guelph Airpark (CNC4), ON, with the
instructor flying the aircraft, the aircraft landed long and suffered a runway excursion. The aircraft
came to stop off the runway amongst trees and shrubs. The aircraft was substantially damaged but
no injuries were reported. Runway 24 is asphalt covered and 2006 feet in length and 40 feet in
width. The runway has a displaced threshold of 730 feet. It was reported that weather and aircraft
mechanical issues were not factors in this occurrence.

[Eric Janson]

Does it *need* to be approved? Which rule would you be violating if you touched down in the second half of the runway instead of the touchdown zone after you were "cleared to land"?

I'd be violating company SOPs.

I believe this is one parameter that is monitored so you'd get a call from the safety department as well.

You'd be violationg company SOPs for landing long without a a specific "landing long clearance"? I've heard of companies prohibiting it completely, I've never heard of one only allowing it with a specific clearance. Interesting! Do you know what the philosophy is behind that policy?

It's very simple - land in the Touchdown Zone or Go- around. No ambiguity.

[lownslow]

The Guelph Flight Centre Cessna 172 (C-FWAZ) was on a local training flight with the instructor
and student on board. On approach to runway 24 at Guelph Airpark (CNC4), ON, with the
instructor flying the aircraft, the aircraft landed long and suffered a runway excursion. The aircraft
came to stop off the runway amongst trees and shrubs. The aircraft was substantially damaged but
no injuries were reported. Runway 24 is asphalt covered and 2006 feet in length and 40 feet in
width. The runway has a displaced threshold of 730 feet. It was reported that weather and aircraft
mechanical issues were not factors in this occurrence.

The rubber marks show the brakes were locked ~600 feet from the end of the runway and the plane carried on a good hundred feet after the pavement before hitting a tree hard enough to turn it 90°. I wonder how fast you have to be going at brake application to do that?