dvis3yzawwgr9p4du4g7rcqsie1vi7

The Short-Field (Accuracy) Landing

Published on

in

,
DPEs continually witness unsuccessful short-field landings during 
testing at all levels. Using power correctly (against induced drag 
"behind the powercurve") permits a *slower* approach and precise 
control of the touchdown. The commercial power-off 180 also requires
an understanding of induced drag.

The short-field landing is probably the most demanding maneuver in the private pilot syllabus. Success on this maneuver requires a precise descent rate while simultaneously maintaining an exact approach airspeed. This is at the edge of the flight envelope all the way into the touchdown. Done correctly, this maneuver demonstrates perfect energy management in the region of reversed command (slower than best glide). The proximity to aerodynamic stall close to the ground necessitates extensive dual training to first achieve safety and then acquire mastery. This is usually the last maneuver flown solo before the flight evaluation (and many flight schools do not even allow this to be flown solo).

The two most common misconceptions that ruin any chance of short-field success are not using power to fly slower approach speeds, or attempting the short-field approach at best-glide airspeed (see the comm. 180 PO). Neither of these techniques will assure the necessary accuracy (though go-arounds are permitted on flight tests).

Great “Bold Method” article!

The ability to adjust power, while simultaneously maintaining a precise, slower airspeed, is what controls the glide path and provides the accurate touchdown. This is the secret to short-field success. Approach at Vg brings too much energy into the level off for a precise touchdown – the most common failure mode on flight tests. To be successful, your airplane must have just enough energy on approach to permit the level-off in ground effect (the stall warning may sound here). The carefully timed power reduction yields the precise touchdown accuracy. Ideally, the power setting in ground effect is just above idle (zero thrust). When reduced to “idle drag,” this creates the immediate touchdown. Watch those Alaska short-field accuracy landings to see extreme versions of the private pilot maneuver (don’t try these at home). Notice the use of power for precision.

The perfect short-field approach is flown in the middle of the power band, balancing power against induced drag while flying slower than best glide. The resulting glide path control and touchdown are amazing. A properly flown short-field approach requires managing a precise airspeed and descent path on the edge of a stall by modulating power and pitch.

…when beginning a suitable final approach, the pilot simultaneously adjusts the power and the pitch attitude to establish and maintain the proper descent angle and airspeed. During a stabilized approach, small changes in the airplane’s pitch attitude and power setting are needed when making corrections to the angle of descent and airspeed. FAA AFM Chapter 9

The best practice for this approach is practicing flight at minimum controllable airspeed (refer to CFI ACS A/O X, Task B) at a safe altitude. Once established and proficient in maintaining level flight at a stabilized airspeed (+/- 2K), add practice descending at precise target rates – managing pitch and power – at a constant airspeed. It is useful to practice a simulated go-around also from this configuration. Powering up has to be followed by a push forward to accelerate to climb speed; you are in “reverse command”here. These skills must be mastered safely at altitude before attempting any short-field approaches close to the ground. (see fallacy of “practicing in final form“)

Carefully determine your target approach airspeed

When a test applicant says their short-field approach speed is “about” some random number in the POH, their attempt in flight is almost surely going to fail; they must have an accurate target speed for success!

So step one is to determine the correct airspeed (fully described in the last blog). Most POHs only give the short-field airspeed at the aircraft’s max. gross weight. This must be carefully “factored” to determine the correct target speed for the condition of the plane and the WX. (Every jet aircraft does this on every landing, so learn this skill now.) Approach speed is based on the actual (usually lower), A/C weight, configuration, and weather conditions.

The old-school method for determining short-field approach speed was simply stalling the plane in landing configuration (at actual weight) on approach, and adding 15-20% for the perfect approach speed. Again, the target approach speed should provide just enough energy to raise the nose to the level and landing position with no float. The last power reduction determines the accuracy. Maintaining this close margin above stall requires precise piloting skill.

Fly a longer final approach

A longer-than-normal final approach allows more time to determine and stabilize the precise airspeed and descent path necessary for the unique conditions. In real backcountry conditions, there are no VASI systems. Relying on the “parallax cueing method” assures a safe glidepath to touchdown. This means lining up the top of the last obstacle with the targeted touchdown point for a clear arrival path.

Specialty landings perfected on a large paved runway during training are only the first step toward *real* short-field proficiency. For your safety, do not assume your “big county airport proficiency” will translate safely to real conditions. Get some dedicated dual on real grass and actual shorter runways for safety.

Expect a much faster level-off landing sequence

Since your energy entering ground effect is so much less, the level off and touch down is a lot faster. The landing level off in ground effect at normal approach speeds ~1.3XVso allows for 2-3 seconds of float. At short-field approach speed, the stall warner will often sound as you round out in ground effect. Carefully timed reduction of any remaining power will create the accurate touchdown you need for short-field accuracy. Lots of practice with a knowledgeable flight instructor is necessary to reach this pinnacle of perfection. All your landings will improve with this hard-won proficiency. Fly safely out there (and often)!

8 responses to “The Short-Field (Accuracy) Landing”

  1. warrenwebbjr Avatar
    warrenwebbjr

    It’s a pretty easy process if you compare airspeeds and length of float from the beginning. Once you see what airspeeds easily result in landings within Normal Landing standards, it’s easy to start reducing the speed on short final in small increments to reduce the float in small steps until consistently within Short-Field Landing standards (little to no float).

    One thing that goes along with less speed (less energy) is that the back pressure to flare is started a little closer to the runway – i.e. instead of 15-20ft, start at 10-15ft – whatever is needed to work, so it could be less than that. But it still should finish as a ‘gentle’ landing.

    This all works exactly the same in twins. Even the Navajos were landed on runways of 2120′ and 2049′ usable for either training purposes or to leave them at a maintenance facility that had only one runway (Goodspeed 42B).

    Pitch and power was always an important topic and the secret to success considering so many variable conditions. And by the way, in countless conversations over the years with different inspectors at the FSDO, many 141 instructors, part-135 chief pilot, and several of the other part-135 pilots I knew, it was always pitch for glideslope, power for airspeed, 100% of the time. Everyone was on the same page. Imagine if an autoland system were programmed to pitch to airspeed. In gusting conditions, the line of flight would look like a roller coaster ride.

  2. David St. George Avatar
    David St. George

    This from “Roger Harris,” unable to log in!?

    Some time ago, I created Vref charts for various different weights in three planes: a Piper Dakota, a Cessna Skylane, and a Cessna Skyhawk. The Dakota chart was easy and successful – instant successful results. The Cessnas…not-so-much.

    The published recommended approach speed in the Piper is 72 KTS with flaps 40. As we know, this is a max gross (3000lbs) number. VSO with flaps 40 is 56 KIAS. Now, if we apply the tried and true 1.3xVSO formula, we get 72.8 KIAS. All good. Then, using the formula published here, I computed Vref for several lighter weights and it works beautifully. Been teaching that with great success.

    But now, enter the Cessnas and the numbers don’t work as well. Let’s just take the Skyhawk. (The Skylane is quite similar.) At max gross (2550lbs) the published VSO is 48 KCAS and 40 KIAS. If we use KCAS and apply our tried and true formula 1.3 x 48 = 62.4 and then convert that to KIAS, we get somewhere around 58 KIAS. If we then use the formula to compute Vref speeds for various different weights, we end up with speeds as low as 49 KIAS at 2000 lbs. As we know, the POH says that normal approach to landing speed is (a very broad) 60-70 KTS. And Short Field landing speed is 61 KTS. Again…max gross numbers.

    So… These are points that I find confusing about the POH:
    1. The POH says this: “Unless otherwise noted, the following speeds are based on a maximum weight of 2550 pounds and may be used for any lesser weight.” So, they are saying you have a choice between 60 and 70 with no guidance. Why give a range of 60-70 KTS for landing at gross weight?
    2. If published short field approach speed is 61 KTS at max gross, what is my 58 KTS (1.3 VSO) number?
    3. The difference in rollout between 60 and 70 KTS is huge and as we know, attempting to land a 172 at 70 KTS is laughable – the float!
    4. Finally, the airspeeds that I computed using the 1.3xVSO formula are quite low e.g. 49 KTS at 2000 lbs. I actually think they are too low on the order of several knots. Lots of wallow.

    Your thoughts?

    1. warrenwebbjr Avatar
      warrenwebbjr

      On the C172S numbers, you’re conversion between indicated and calibrated is out of sync. The 40 and 48 numbers you included are actually indicated, not calibrated. Using 40 indicated, that translates to 50 calibrated full flaps. 50 cal x 1.3 = 65 cal, which converts to 62.2 indicated. The POH recommended speed is 61 indicated. From what I understand, the test pilots may decide on a number that isn’t quite exactly 1.3 x Vso. From my experience, the 61 is a very good number for the approach, but to get a landing with little to no float, it usually needs to be a lower number at the point where power is chopped and the roundout started.

  3. David St. George Avatar
    David St. George

    Thanks Warren. I wrote that to Roger Harris too: always work in calibrated and *then* convert to indicated. A great resource to clarify this process is the FAA Document “On Landings II”

  4. pokepath td Avatar

    Your ability to distill complex concepts into digestible nuggets of wisdom is truly remarkable. I always come away from your blog feeling enlightened and inspired. Keep up the phenomenal work!

    1. David St. George Avatar
      David St. George

      Thanks so much; your comment makes all the work worthwhile. Experiencing many unsuccessful short field *attempts* on checkrides make this information especially critical for every pilot.

  5. […] news and fresh resources. SAFE YouTube for Initial CFI Prep, Power-Off 180 Commercial Landings to Short-Field Landing Accuracy. Also see our new AI Aviation Tool trained on SAFE Blog posts. Join SAFE and support our safety […]

  6. Pokepath TD Avatar

    This totally makes sense! So it’s like riding a bike real slow to hit a tiny spot, you gotta use a little “pedal” (power) to stay up instead of just coasting. Gonna think about being “behind the powercurve” next lesson. Play pokepath tower defense Online for free

Tell us what *you* think!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Thanks for Visiting!

Thank you for visiting the SAFE Blog. There are over 500 specifically tailored articles covering a wide range of aviation issues related to flight training both as a pilot and as a CFI. Search HERE for a specific article, and Join SAFE

Please try our new AI Tool (Chat 5.2 trained on SAFE Blog content) for your specific topics of answers to your aviation questions. SAFE crafted AI Tool


Notification Here!

Stay updated with our latest tips and other news by joining our newsletter.


Free SAFE Toolkit App

Everything a busy CFI needs at their fingertips, *plus* resources for pilot applicants: “Checkride Ready” (with all the DPE advice on how to pass your practical test) FREE Download

Discover more from Aviation Ideas and Discussion!

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading