Scudrunners

The "big" Citation Sovereign I drive has incredible short field performance, think the box was saying 2200 ft landing distance last night.  You can easily beat that most days if you want to but I don't like to spill the bosses drink.

"Interesting critique of what looked like a safe landing to a short, wet runway to me."

Rookie Pilot:  There's no doubt that it was safe; however, notice the difference in technique in the following:


Nice job.  On speed, nose high touchdown.


  Another B200 at Nelson; he’s a touch fast

  From the cockpit (Go forward to the 2:30 mark)


John

John S,


Landing strip 3100 feet long.


B 200 landing distance 2850. (Assuming over the 50 ft obstacle)


That is extremely tight, so I'm still not getting it.

Flare to land, squat to pee.

Despite what you may hear from TC, running off the end of
the runway really is harder on the landing gear than a firm
landing.

[img width=500 height=281]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bxmvddvvFNs/maxresdefault.jpg[/img]



I guess everyone has forgotten why they had to
extend runway 25/07 at CYOW  ::)

[url=https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20100616-0]https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20100616-0[/url]

[quote]The [b]smooth landing[/b] on a wet runway led to viscous hydroplaning,
which [b]resulted in poor braking action and reduced aircraft deceleration,
contributing to the runway overrun[/b][/quote]

Keep fishing for those greasers, boys!  AME's have
kids to put through university, too.

"The smooth landing on a wet runway led to viscous hydroplaning,
which resulted in poor braking action and reduced aircraft deceleration,
contributing to the runway overrun"

We're still talking about the winter landing in Nelson aren't we?  I don't disagree with your comments about hydroplaning on a wet runway...  I've experienced same.  However, there's no need for the "wet runway" type touchdown on a runway contaminated with a skiff of snow, is there?  Or am I missing something? 

"Landing strip 3100 feet long. B 200 landing distance 2850. (Assuming over the 50 ft obstacle) That is extremely tight, so I'm still not getting it."

Rookie Pilot:

That is not extremely tight.  The 2850 is predicated on using normal pilot technique.  In this case, there's no water and just a skiff of snow to complicate things.  Hence, normal technique will suffice.  Now, if one is concerned about the length of the runway, you can plan to bring your touchdown point closer to the approach end of the runway by whatever means is comfortable to you.  (You use up a lot of runway getting rid of that 50 feet)

Consider two parallel runways - side by each.  One 3100 feet long, the other 7000 feet long. Two B200 aircraft approach simultaneously using equal technique and turn off at the same distance down runway.  Pilot A may think "That was tight" while the other will opine "No sweat".  However, both used the same technique.  All things being equal, many of the perceived problems about going into a "short field" are just that...  Perceived. 

A older Citation I flew years ago recommended 1.3 Vso for a normal approach. For a short field approach, it recommended NO FASTER than Vso.  That indicated to me that I could shave a few knots off my approach speed which would bring the touchdown point closer to the threshold...  Never had to do it as we never went into anything less than 4000 feet...

John