So I’m on final approach, sliding down the glidepath, tracking the extended runway centerline, everything looking good, and then...it’s decision time. Do I go for a smooth touchdown, squeaking the mains on just so and holding the yoke aft to keep the nose wheel off until it finally plunks down onto the runway? Or do I set up for a standard arrival, agreeing to a firmer touchdown in exchange for a shorter rollout? What’s it going to be this time?
Just how I want to execute the final-final approach, touchdown, and landing rollout—go smoother or go shorter—is a decision I find myself making frequently. The default approach and landing technique calls for flying the VASI or PAPI or other visual glidepath aid (if the runway is so equipped), alighting as smoothly as possible in the touchdown zone, and using mild braking to slow and exit the runway at a convenient turnoff lane. It’s stable, it’s simple, and it’s safe.
So why not do that each and every time? Why not set the bar at a standard that accepts nothing less than landing in the touchdown zone of the runway? Because a piece-of-cake landing doesn’t automatically come with frosting: a smooth touchdown. That worthy objective calls for precisely coordinating power and pitch, and in heavier aircraft pitch trim, to finesse the roundout, flare, and the oh-so-delicate descent over the few remaining inches to the runway surface. Every sensory cue is on full alert, especially the one residing in the seat of your pants, to feel for the runway.
A Teflon-smooth touchdown is indeed satisfying, but the downside is that it will probably consume more runway length than an off-the-shelf, piece-of-cake landing. Most times that’s OK because there’s usually ample runway with which to work. At worst it might mean a longer taxi back to the ramp.
That’s not the case with heavier aircraft, especially jets. Trying for a smooth touchdown in a jet can really eat up runway length, and in a fast, heavy airplane the runway ahead on landing is extremely valuable real estate. That’s why super-smooth arrivals in a jet are the exception rather than the rule.
It’s not always good to go for smoother in a light aircraft, either. If it’s a short runway you just need to get down and stopped—forget about smooth. Another situation where you might opt for a shorter landing distance instead of a smooth touchdown is when you want to exit the runway at a specific turnoff to minimize taxi time and length.
Sacrificing a gorgeous landing for an extra minute or two of taxi time may sound unreasonable, but in aviation time is money, and taxiing takes time and costs money. It’s standard operating procedure for commercial operators and corporate flight departments to know where on the airport they are headed before they arrive, and plan the landing for the most efficient runway exit.
Everyone’s preference is for a smooth arrival, especially with passengers aboard. Why tarnish their enjoyment of a great flight with an uncomfortable drop onto the runway and a seatbelt-tugging rollout? But, as we’ve seen, smooth is not always advisable or even possible. Sometimes it’s advisable to be efficient and minimize runway length, and sometimes you have no choice but to make it a short-field landing.
Even if you’ve done all of your training and early flying with a mile or more of asphalt beneath your wheels on takeoff and landing, sooner or later you’ll want to go to an airport with a much shorter and narrower runway. Setting up for final approach to a short runway is not the time to wonder whether or not you are up to the task. The airplane probably is more than capable, but unless you’ve practiced short-field arrivals and are confident in your technique and the outcome, it’s not going to be a pretty thing for the hangar-fliers at that short-field airport to watch.
Related Articles
