mosteam3985

I was laughing this whole time! Thanks for sharing, that is awesome!

Sliceback

Hard to tell exactly where you touched down but it looked like it was about halfway down the runway. Touchdown zone is first 3000' or 1/3 of the landing distance.

lstorm2003

I think I was ok there... Couldn't have been 1/2 way down that I touched because I was stopped and turned off at the halfway point... If you Look at the airport diagram (KLNA) I took the only turnoff on the 3489 foot runway (09) which is just about at the halfway point...

Flyoun

Looked fine to me as well. I wouldn't worry about what people comment on youtube that much. There's always someone that thinks they can do it better.

prwest

Like everyone else has said...your approach is fine

Sliceback

If you touched down at the intersection (900') I'd give you two thumbs up. As is it's one thumb up.

A slightly different opinion about "it's fine" and here's why -

Your touchdown appeared to have been past the end of the landing zone. Explaination at the end of post.

Discussion of grading your video vs. the performance standards of the pros -

It's unacceptable landing past the landing zone in jets, military flying, or airline flying. For a checkride or during training it's a 'unsat' item.

Video of SW landing at SNA(Orange Co/John Wayne). 5700'. Guy plants it just prior to the 1000' mark at 5:10.

Southwest Airlines - Boeing 737 Landing at John Wayne Airport - YouTube

AA 737-800 SNA landing. Estimate touchdown at 800-900'. Approach speed at max landing weight would be 146 kts into a 5700' runway in the rain. Hauling the mail boys, hauling the mail!

Santa Ana Approach & Landing in the rain American Airlines 737-800 - YouTube

Shows why the FAA and airline industry has touching down in the landing zone as a 'hot item'.

Both 737 videos are the same as touching down in the runway intersection at Lantana except in an airplane doing 130+ knots. Excellent job of flying, and stopping, a jet 'hauling the mail' into a 5700' runway. Landing zone there is 1900'. Jets eat 200-250' in about a second at landing speeds. so there's not much room to mess around.



The turnoff at Lantana is past midfield. It's about 2000' leaving 1500' remaining. Used sat view to measure it so the distances might be slightly off. Landing zone stopped at 1150'. Stall warning stopped past that(if that signifies touchdown).

JamesNoBrakes

I've always noticed a psychological aspect of that, many pilots I've flown with always wanted to start pulling power, rounding out, etc, only with the runway beneath them. As anyone who knows 2 or more things about physics knows, you aren't going to land when you start pulling the power, you'll keep going for at least a little bit. The reason people wait so long IMO is for a few reasons, but mostly because they only want to pull power and start slowing for the final pitch adjustments when the runway is beneath them, because it "feels" safe. It will never lead to a good short field landing and at worst may cause an accident, but I've flown with several people who had a lot of difficulty getting over this mental hurtle. What is different about different airplanes is the timing, the sink rates, the roundout heights, etc, but general concepts are the same. In a transport category you are most likely working off of height for your cues, but there are many that can be used, especially in a light aircraft. You've got to adapt correctly, a steeper approach carries more energy, requires an earlier power reduction.

An old adage of "start pulling the power when the threshold passes" or "aim for the bottom of the runway" is just too simplistic to prevent those long/fast landings like we see in the video. It has to all be considered and taken into account, the approach angle, the cue points at which certain things will happen, prevailing wind conditions, and anything else. Only then will you help to guarantee any kind of accuracy/reliability with the performance. Otherwise it ends up being more of a maneuver based on hopes and dreams

Sliceback

Years ago (1981) used to do 120+ MPH no flap touch and go's in a Cherokee 140. Practicing for jets. ;-) You'd have to pull the power a loooong way out on final to land by the 1000' mark. Touchdown, power, rotate climb slightly(500'?) and a climbing turn to downwind. Makes for fast pattern work.

Twin Otter standard ILS was basically redline (160kts?) down the glideslope. Power would be reduced to idle somewhere(I forget) so that we'd be about 100 kts(?) at minimums with power being unspoiled at a constant rate. If nothing in sight at DH we'd continue the rate of power application to go around power. If we saw the field we'd go back to idle and land no flap.

Handing flying 4, 6, 8, or 10 ILS's to minimums on bad days and it was an effective technique in the Twin Otter. In a jet? Dumber than dirt to even think about it.

Needless to say this was years before the FAA mandated stablized approaches.

lstorm2003

I appreciate your points, and if I had any concerns about a short runway I would have planned an earlier touchdown... But... As it happens I wasn't trying to get a 737 at max gross into a 5700 ft runway... I had plenty of runway available. There was nothing even slightly dangerous (someone said "might lead to a crash" lol?) about my approach & landing..

And the fact that you can't even quite tell where I toched down I take as a compliment... I held the nose off the pavement for as long as airspeed would allow, so I wasn't in any hurry to jam on the brakes either...

Fact is at almost every airport I can think of that I've landed at recently, there is many times more length than I actually need for the A/C I fly.. So I prefer to carry more slightly more speed and altitude and bleed it off over the runway.. This way if something does happen, I don't stall the airplane and put it into a power line trying to stretch a glide to the runway...

I respect & understand your opinion, I just don't think it applies to my kind of flying.. If I were flying a jet, or had concerns about landing distance, then yes I would agree with you...

Sliceback

Agreed about different techniques/recommendations for different types of flying.

I did give you one thumbs up. ;-)))

"Might lead to a crash" is silly. Situation awareness is key as well as not boxing yourself into a corner. Landing a light a/c on brick one of a jet runway is silly especially if you're parking at the far end of the runway.

Learning energy management developes your pilot skills . If you have enough energy it's easy. Having barely enough energy and still making it seperates the men from the boys. I've done a bunch of simulator jet dead stick landings. Some instructors set up you at so that you're higher on profile then you'd ever be in the real world and getting RID of all the energy is the problem. I prefer setting it up with just enough energy to make the field(typical VFR optimum descent/arrival profile) and seeing if you can make it. Nothing like being in ground effect, short of the runway, with flaps tracking, and floating to a touchdown on pavement. The difference is the two setups is the experience that Scully was instantly able to draw upon to realize TEB was out of the question.

Thanks for the civil reply.