Being a contrary sort to chap, I had to express my disagreement on the following opinion: this came from a Sport Pilot forum and was posted by an instructor who runs a school in the north-west:
Short field landings are one of the easiest IF you understand the underlying concept - that being that it is a minimum energy, maximum drag (that's where full flaps come in), full stall, precision landing. Minimum energy means coming in with a reduced margin of airspeed and altitude.
Here is where I would differ from some of the posters on this list. The PTS does not require a steeper approach path nor is that technique the one used in most real world short field situations such as landing on a gravel bar in AK. The way they do it up there, the way we teach it, and the way our examiners want to see it, is with a much shallower than normal approach. We are teach these below the PAPI and are dragging the plane in with power on the back side of the power curve. Power is pulled over the threshold (aim spot) and the plane is stalled over the touch down spot (target spot). Bare in mind that the aim spot is not the target spot since you still have way too much energy over the aim spot to stall and this is a full stall landing.
What makes the short field landing easy to pass on a checkride is that if it looks like you are going to stall before the target spot, you just add a little power to lengthen the float. If it looks like you are going to stall after the target spot, you just execute a go around. Since your approach and flare are so slow, you have plenty of time too judge where your stall is going to be.
To my mind this is a terrible thing to teach a student. Every instructor I have ever known would slap you over the head if you landed by dragging the airplane to the landing spot from a long, shallow approach and dropped it on the runway. I understand that the technique is used sometimes quite appropriately in real life; like landing on a sandbank in Alaska and using the river for a long unobstructed approach. But to teach it to a primary student is asking for trouble in my opinion. I have heard of examiners failing students for using just such a technique and I would be truly surprised if DPEs up there really want to see such a thing on the checkride.
What would happen to a student if he/she was confronted by a short field with trees at either end? They'd have no idea how to deal with that. Or the day the engine quits and all there is is short fields with obstructions around them?
IMHO a short field landing ought to be a check of a students ability to manage approach speed control, angle of descent and hitting his touch down point without excessive use of power.
And I know examiners are within their right to fail you if you approach a field below the PAPI, if it has one, short field technique or not.
Opinions?
Short field landings are one of the easiest IF you understand the underlying concept - that being that it is a minimum energy, maximum drag (that's where full flaps come in), full stall, precision landing. Minimum energy means coming in with a reduced margin of airspeed and altitude.
Here is where I would differ from some of the posters on this list. The PTS does not require a steeper approach path nor is that technique the one used in most real world short field situations such as landing on a gravel bar in AK. The way they do it up there, the way we teach it, and the way our examiners want to see it, is with a much shallower than normal approach. We are teach these below the PAPI and are dragging the plane in with power on the back side of the power curve. Power is pulled over the threshold (aim spot) and the plane is stalled over the touch down spot (target spot). Bare in mind that the aim spot is not the target spot since you still have way too much energy over the aim spot to stall and this is a full stall landing.
What makes the short field landing easy to pass on a checkride is that if it looks like you are going to stall before the target spot, you just add a little power to lengthen the float. If it looks like you are going to stall after the target spot, you just execute a go around. Since your approach and flare are so slow, you have plenty of time too judge where your stall is going to be.
To my mind this is a terrible thing to teach a student. Every instructor I have ever known would slap you over the head if you landed by dragging the airplane to the landing spot from a long, shallow approach and dropped it on the runway. I understand that the technique is used sometimes quite appropriately in real life; like landing on a sandbank in Alaska and using the river for a long unobstructed approach. But to teach it to a primary student is asking for trouble in my opinion. I have heard of examiners failing students for using just such a technique and I would be truly surprised if DPEs up there really want to see such a thing on the checkride.
What would happen to a student if he/she was confronted by a short field with trees at either end? They'd have no idea how to deal with that. Or the day the engine quits and all there is is short fields with obstructions around them?
IMHO a short field landing ought to be a check of a students ability to manage approach speed control, angle of descent and hitting his touch down point without excessive use of power.
And I know examiners are within their right to fail you if you approach a field below the PAPI, if it has one, short field technique or not.
Opinions?
Last edited:
