burning runway on the landing roll to reduce taxiing

General » Aviation

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - burning runway on the landing roll to reduce taxiing (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 4/13/2015 6:51:18 PM EDT

Sort of a strange title perhaps, I know...

Was on a Dash-8 the other day. We landed on a 10,000" foot runway, obviously WAY more than the Dash needs. I noticed that we landed pretty long, and after we landed, there was no reverse pitch and very little if any wheel braking, we pretty much slowed via aerodynamics and friction I guess and went almost all the way to the end of the runway. After we turned off, I realized that this was ultimately where the pilot(s) wanted/needed to be based on where we ultimately taxied. It definitely appeared to me, in retrospect, what we essentially used the landing roll as a form of taxi.

Is this generally a good idea? It would seem to me that if you have way more runway than you need then sure, go real easy on the wheel brakes and maybe skip ONE turnoff, but still get off the active quickly and efficiently and make use of the taxiway.

Thoughts?

Posted: 4/13/2015 6:53:55 PM EDT

[#1]

We called it the Short-Long in Alaska and used it to avoid a lengthy taxi.

Posted: 4/13/2015 7:19:07 PM EDT

[#2]

Why not? The pilot was using good judgement and making the best of the situation...i.e. time, distance, fuel burn, schedule... etc.

I once worked for a small high-speed transport company in Dallas that did this type of thing as a matter of fact. It assured the survival of the company which is now is no longer small.

Posted: 4/13/2015 9:33:59 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Sort of a strange title perhaps, I know...

Was on a Dash-8 the other day. We landed on a 10,000" foot runway, obviously WAY more than the Dash needs. I noticed that we landed pretty long, and after we landed, there was no reverse pitch and very little if any wheel braking, we pretty much slowed via aerodynamics and friction I guess and went almost all the way to the end of the runway. After we turned off, I realized that this was ultimately where the pilot(s) wanted/needed to be based on where we ultimately taxied. It definitely appeared to me, in retrospect, what we essentially used the landing roll as a form of taxi.

Is this generally a good idea? It would seem to me that if you have way more runway than you need then sure, go real easy on the wheel brakes and maybe skip ONE turnoff, but still get off the active quickly and efficiently and make use of the taxiway.

Thoughts?

View Quote

Why use the brakes more than you need? Why spend all the time taxiing? As long as the tower is not urging you to clear the runway… I see it as a great idea.

Posted: 4/13/2015 9:36:01 PM EDT

[#4]

PTS says.....

"For all landings, touch down at the aiming point markings -250' to +500' or where there are no runway aiming point markings, 750' to 1,500' from the approach
threshold of the runway."

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

Posted: 4/13/2015 10:01:23 PM EDT

[#5]

When I was flying Brasilia's, we would routinely ask for "long landings" if it wasn't busy and the turn off/parking gates were on the far end.
That way we could make a nice transition from landing speed to taxi speed with very little to no brakes and light reverse.

Posted: 4/13/2015 10:05:28 PM EDT

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:

PTS says.....

"For all landings, touch down at the aiming point markings -250' to +500' or where there are no runway aiming point markings, 750' to 1,500' from the approach

threshold of the runway."

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

View Quote

The PTS is for testing and checking. It does not consider daily modifications to facilitate extended life of brakes, engines, fuel savings, etc.

That is no excuse, however, to fly in an unsafe manner or exercise poor judgement.

Take the landing distance performance numbers for example. Those are obtained by test pilots who touch down in a positively firm manner, no flare, and then apply MAXIMUM braking. Imagine the reaction by passengers if that became the normal routine.

Posted: 4/13/2015 10:07:23 PM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:
The PTS is for testing and checking. It does not consider daily modifications to facilitate extended life of brakes, engines, fuel savings, etc. That is no excuse, however, to fly in an unsafe manner or exercise poor judgement.

Take the landing distance performance numbers for example. Those are obtained by test pilots who touch down in a positively firm manner, no flare, and then apply MAXIMUM braking. Imagine the reaction by passengers if that became the normal routine.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
PTS says.....

"For all landings, touch down at the aiming point markings -250' to +500' or where there are no runway aiming point markings, 750' to 1,500' from the approach
threshold of the runway."

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

The PTS is for testing and checking. It does not consider daily modifications to facilitate extended life of brakes, engines, fuel savings, etc. That is no excuse, however, to fly in an unsafe manner or exercise poor judgement.

Take the landing distance performance numbers for example. Those are obtained by test pilots who touch down in a positively firm manner, no flare, and then apply MAXIMUM braking. Imagine the reaction by passengers if that became the normal routine.

Chicago Midway. That's pretty much how it's done as normal routine there, for obvious reasons.

Posted: 4/13/2015 10:11:17 PM EDT

[#8]

Depends on how busy they are. When there are a number of aircraft landing, tower wants you to exit quickly. If I don't have to stand on the brakes, I don't.

Posted: 4/13/2015 10:56:19 PM EDT

[#9]

Quote History

Quoted:
Depends on how busy they are. When there are a number of aircraft landing, tower wants you to exit quickly. If I don't have to stand on the brakes, I don't.

View Quote

this

Posted: 4/14/2015 7:56:59 AM EDT

[#10]

We use to land the dash-8 on 33r in Kbos all the time with passengers. I think the runway is about 2600 feet long. It's been
awhile but I think we also had a 20 knot tail wind limit. The tower would ask us for a braking action report sometimes
and the answer usually was didn't have to use them.lol

Posted: 4/14/2015 8:48:05 AM EDT

[#11]

In the corporate world we do it to shorten taxi and save life on brakes....brakes are expensive! we just changed the left brakes as one developed a problem ===$50,000 just for parts

Posted: 4/14/2015 8:55:29 AM EDT

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:
PTS says.....

"For all landings, touch down at the aiming point markings -250' to +500' or where there are no runway aiming point markings, 750' to 1,500' from the approach
threshold of the runway."

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

View Quote

Interesting. Do you read the PTS as if it were the final say on subjects like this?

Landing 750'-1500' from the approach threshold of some of the runways I operate out of would probably mean I'd roll off the far end into the trees.

Posted: 4/14/2015 9:26:45 AM EDT

[#13]

That was standard procedure for mixing slow general aviation airplanes into the traffic at Air Force bases; maintain speed down the runway to clear the arrestment cables and barricades, then touch down close enough to the taxiway to turn off quickly so following jets were not affected.

I've flown three fourths the length of the runway at Langley to get close to the turn off!

Posted: 4/14/2015 10:10:51 AM EDT

[#14]

I buy brakes so I don't use them if I don't have to.

I treat the company airplanes as if I buy the brakes for them, too.

The pilots that stand on the brakes are the ones that speed up to red lights as well, in my company at least.

Posted: 4/14/2015 2:23:12 PM EDT

[#15]

PTS is test bible. The real world doesn't always obey the good book.

Posted: 4/14/2015 9:10:13 PM EDT

[#16]

Yes. I am incapable of differentiating between the PTS and the real world.

The point of the FAA putting that in the PTS is because the FAA was concerned about runway excursions.

Posted: 4/14/2015 9:16:09 PM EDT

[#17]

A lot of people have covered the brake cost, but there's another point - reverse thrust tends to kick up debris on the runway, which can then potentially FOD your engine.

It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

Never use more reverse thrust or brake than you need.

In a Dash-8, on a 10,000' runway... that's basically none.

Posted: 4/14/2015 10:07:19 PM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
Yes. I am incapable of differentiating between the PTS and the real world.

The point of the FAA putting that in the PTS is because the FAA was concerned about runway excursions.

View Quote

An excursion is a trip by a group of people, usually made for leisure, education, or physical purposes. It is often an adjunct to a longer journey or visit to a place, ..

Posted: 4/15/2015 3:18:40 PM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:

An excursion is a trip by a group of people, usually made for leisure, education, or physical purposes. It is often an adjunct to a longer journey or visit to a place, ..

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Yes. I am incapable of differentiating between the PTS and the real world.

The point of the FAA putting that in the PTS is because the FAA was concerned about runway excursions.

An excursion is a trip by a group of people, usually made for leisure, education, or physical purposes. It is often an adjunct to a longer journey or visit to a place, ..

Hay man, I'm just using the industry term.

http://runwayexcursions.faa.gov/content.html?id=f

Posted: 4/15/2015 9:46:55 PM EDT

[#20]

What counts is zero airspeed at the right gate...on time, if not early and with extra gas that you didn't burn by configuring too early and using too much reverse and having to taxi a long way to get to the gate

Posted: 4/16/2015 2:07:59 AM EDT

[#21]

"The runway behind you is of no value."

Posted: 4/16/2015 5:45:38 AM EDT

[#22]

A wise man once told me many years ago. When you are thinking about doing anything non standard, start at the hearing, and work back to right now. Rolling out long probably won't cause you any problems, unless you can't get stopped for some reason, and you don't figure it out till it's too late.

As far as landing long, if your ops supports it, and you are comfortable articulating why you left all that runway behind you at the hearing, go for it. At our place we have to touchdown in the first 1/3 of the runway, but no more than 3000' down. 14,000' Runway, if we are not on the ground in the first 3000' we have to go around. And by all means, be sure to ask the tower if it's ok to "land long", so it's on tape.

Posted: 4/16/2015 3:36:53 PM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:
In the corporate world we do it to shorten taxi and save life on brakes....brakes are expensive! we just changed the left brakes as one developed a problem ===$50,000 just for parts

View Quote

Yep. A good action, as you get to your area faster and less wear on equipment.

There is an opposite action in commercial. The pilots want to hit the gate, so you may find heavy braking to make a taxiway closer to their gate.

Posted: 4/16/2015 4:18:23 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
A wise man once told me many years ago. When you are thinking about doing anything non standard, start at the hearing, and work back to right now. Rolling out long probably won't cause you any problems, unless you can't get stopped for some reason, and you don't figure it out till it's too late.

As far as landing long, if your ops supports it, and you are comfortable articulating why you left all that runway behind you at the hearing, go for it. At our place we have to touchdown in the first 1/3 of the runway, but no more than 3000' down. 14,000' Runway, if we are not on the ground in the first 3000' we have to go around. And by all means, be sure to ask the tower if it's ok to "land long", so it's on tape.

View Quote

I've seen the FAA do it in Juneau, it was even taught in the company 135 ground school.

Posted: 4/16/2015 6:23:17 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:

Yep. A good action, as you get to your area faster and less wear on equipment.

There is an opposite action in commercial. The pilots want to hit the gate, so you may find heavy braking to make a taxiway closer to their gate.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
In the corporate world we do it to shorten taxi and save life on brakes....brakes are expensive! we just changed the left brakes as one developed a problem ===$50,000 just for parts

Yep. A good action, as you get to your area faster and less wear on equipment.

There is an opposite action in commercial. The pilots want to hit the gate, so you may find heavy braking to make a taxiway closer to their gate.

In the old days the pilots wanted to 'hit" the stews as well as the gate. Today you never know who wants to "hit" whom with all the tolerance and transgenderification.

Posted: 4/16/2015 10:08:50 PM EDT

[#26]

^ There seems to be an increase in that among flight attendants.

When landing at PBI and going to Jet in my Mooney, if I'm given 10R, I request, and am usually granted, 10L. I will usually stay in slow ground effect until my preferred taxiway.

Posted: 4/17/2015 8:10:28 AM EDT

[#27]

I'm my172, yeah I'll land long to cut down on the taxi.

For work, nope, I've got to get in on in the touchdown zone. I'll use less brakes/reverse and let it roll if there's a lot of runway, and the exit is a long ways away though.

Posted: 4/18/2015 2:29:42 PM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:
PTS says.....

"For all landings, touch down at the aiming point markings -250' to +500' or where there are no runway aiming point markings, 750' to 1,500' from the approach
threshold of the runway."

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

View Quote

I can land my 7ECA is less than 1K safely with no issue. So, why land at the end of the runway, when my turn off is 3K feet away? I can taxi at 5-10MPH, or I can fly 70MPH. If you were waiting to take off or land, would you prefer I taxi 4K feet, or land at say 2K feet down the runway and pull off in over half the time?

Now my Pitts, I can land it in less than 1500 feet…. But I don't. I put it on the numbers and taxi. And yes, I have had people get mad at me for not clearing the runway as fast as they like… I just don't care.

So if it is easy to do, no danger, I see no issue.

Posted: 4/22/2015 4:03:55 AM EDT

[#29]

Up in PANC if the traffic situation allows and we get approved for a long landing on 7R . I'll touch down and pop the spoilers and coast the 6000 ft to our turnoff to Millionaire. Won't touch the brakes until the it's time to turn on to the taxiway. same with KBFI if we are landing to the North, just coast to the end.

Posted: 4/22/2015 4:33:47 AM EDT

[#30]

At MEM, you can see the FedEx planes long landing when they're coming in on the 36's for the overnight push. I'm sure they're doing it to get to the parking stands at the hub quicker, but I expect to see one overrun the runway cutting it too close one day.

Posted: 4/28/2015 9:41:48 PM EDT

[#31]

I fly as long as I can. I have to dodge mud holes, pot holes, cows, and all other manner of bullshit on the ground.

Posted: 5/2/2015 5:30:03 PM EDT

[#32]

I'm going through airforce flight school now. In the t6 we would land on the numbers bc we were being graded to do so but then we would take off again fly in ground effect then land and taxi off At the end of the runway.

Posted: 5/2/2015 9:28:51 PM EDT

[#33]

The FDX airplanes you see landing in MEM are heavy. It lakes some runway to get stopped. We need to clear the runway as quickly as we can because of the arrival rate, we're not coasting down the runway. There is also quite often a tailwind (up to 15kts) which will also use up a lot of runway.
My last landing in MEM was a 15kt tailwind, 500,000+ lbs landing wt, and ref around 148kts. You will use up some runway.

Posted: 5/2/2015 9:36:56 PM EDT

[#34]

Ha ha. Our pilots sometimes make a ninety right over the runway a third the way down, float another third, then ride a wheelie after touchdown to the end where taxiway is. Downwind.

Twin Otter, Dash 8's baby brother.

Posted: 5/2/2015 10:25:21 PM EDT

[#35]

Sorry, but has anyone talked about the three most useless things to a pilot yet:

-- Altitude above you

-- runway behind you

-- fuel you left back in the truck

Posted: 5/2/2015 11:28:59 PM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:
The FDX airplanes you see landing in MEM are heavy. It lakes some runway to get stopped. We need to clear the runway as quickly as we can because of the arrival rate, we're not coasting down the runway. There is also quite often a tailwind (up to 15kts) which will also use up a lot of runway.
My last landing in MEM was a 15kt tailwind, 500,000+ lbs landing wt, and ref around 148kts. You will use up some runway.

View Quote

What is the max tailwind component for that aircraft?

Posted: 5/2/2015 11:33:46 PM EDT

[#37]

And what type of aircraft is landing 500k+?

Posted: 5/3/2015 12:43:12 PM EDT

[#38]

B777F, and they just upped the max tailwind to 15 from 10. Don't want to turn the airport around for just a couple of knots- that would increase taxi time, fuel burn, and reduce available sort time.

Posted: 5/3/2015 12:54:05 PM EDT

[#39]

You land long at BUR and end up at the gas station. So it makes sense!

Posted: 5/3/2015 5:39:32 PM EDT

[#40]

Quote History

Quoted:
You land long at BUR and end up at the gas station. So it makes sense!

View Quote

Posted: 5/3/2015 11:26:26 PM EDT

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:
And what type of aircraft is landing 500k+?

View Quote

A big ole sumbich

Posted: 5/4/2015 1:36:00 AM EDT

[#42]

As others have said, not uncommon. Whether or not it's smart can be based on several factors, the largest frequently being traffic volume.

I've done it frequently while flying a King Air off of 2 mile long runways and, similarly, have both asked to land long and have been asked by tower if I can accept a long landing. Still, even though it saves time and money (one and the same in aviation) and I've done it regularly, I have somewhat of an aversion to the idea of spending more time than is necessary on an active runway. This is probably borne from operating under single-runway ops in a combat environment frequently, and having seen (and held for) runway closers due to aircraft mishaps or malfunctions on the runway. The consideration extends to civilian flying too...if you're rolling out and blow a tire or the cabin starts filling with smoke, better to shut down a taxiway than the only runway.

Posted: 5/4/2015 1:40:47 AM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:
The FDX airplanes you see landing in MEM are heavy. It lakes some runway to get stopped. We need to clear the runway as quickly as we can because of the arrival rate, we're not coasting down the runway. There is also quite often a tailwind (up to 15kts) which will also use up a lot of runway.
My last landing in MEM was a 15kt tailwind, 500,000+ lbs landing wt, and ref around 148kts. You will use up some runway.

View Quote

Damn

Posted: 5/4/2015 5:24:48 PM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:
Ha ha. Our pilots sometimes make a ninety right over the runway a third the way down, float another third, then ride a wheelie after touchdown to the end where taxiway is. Downwind.

Twin Otter, Dash 8's baby brother.

View Quote

The STOL game is completely different.

Nothing like having the front wheel lift off the ground last. Learned that one the hard way, with a crosswind.

Posted: 5/5/2015 10:56:18 AM EDT

[#45]

Quote History

Quoted:
Sorry, but has anyone talked about the three most useless things to a pilot yet:

-- Altitude above you

-- runway behind you

-- fuel you left back in the truck

View Quote

All of aviation is a calculated risk. If you're going to fly by colloquialisms I doubt you reach commercial mins anytime soon.

Posted: 5/5/2015 11:13:37 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Sort of a strange title perhaps, I know...

Was on a Dash-8 the other day. We landed on a 10,000" foot runway, obviously WAY more than the Dash needs. I noticed that we landed pretty long, and after we landed, there was no reverse pitch and very little if any wheel braking, we pretty much slowed via aerodynamics and friction I guess and went almost all the way to the end of the runway. After we turned off, I realized that this was ultimately where the pilot(s) wanted/needed to be based on where we ultimately taxied. It definitely appeared to me, in retrospect, what we essentially used the landing roll as a form of taxi.

Is this generally a good idea? It would seem to me that if you have way more runway than you need then sure, go real easy on the wheel brakes and maybe skip ONE turnoff, but still get off the active quickly and efficiently and make use of the taxiway.

Thoughts?

View Quote

ATC has the habit of asking you to speed up, pushing you to the Final Approach Fix, and then asking you to exit the first taxiway. I have had controllers tell me if I miss the first exit the guy behind me will have to go around. Every landing you try for uniformity, but every landing is different. That runway spot on the windshield stays the same on your descent but with the float of ground effect and the flare you may land much farther down

Posted: 5/5/2015 12:42:48 PM EDT

[#47]

Quote History

Quoted:

All of aviation is a calculated risk. If you're going to fly by colloquialisms I doubt you reach commercial mins anytime soon.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Sorry, but has anyone talked about the three most useless things to a pilot yet:

-- Altitude above you

-- runway behind you

-- fuel you left back in the truck

All of aviation is a calculated risk. If you're going to fly by colloquialisms I doubt you reach commercial mins anytime soon.

True.

Performance data... TOLD... whatever you call it. What does it mean?

The concept of delayed breaking isn't cosmic.

Posted: 5/5/2015 3:50:49 PM EDT

[#48]

I don't think anyone has advocated landing a high performance jet on the last two thousand feet of runway but a 4000' taxi is far better than a 9000' taxi any day. If the conditions, spacing, aircraft, and pilot can do it then I see no reason to be afraid of it. If any of those aren't met then I'll just pop my TRs after touchdown and roll to the end without braking.

I've never turned down a short long or LAHSO when the conditions allowed and don't consider either of them to be reckless.

Posted: 5/5/2015 4:31:47 PM EDT

[#49]

I assume that the bulk (90% plus) of the wear that expensive aircraft tires experience comes from the initial touchdown and not from putting "mileage" on them?