• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Short Approach?

B

bob turner

Registered User
We have Cherokees asking for short approaches, and then executing what looks to me like a rather long approach. For four decades I have assumed that if I am number one for a runway the choice of how far out to run my downwind is mine.

The AIM makes several comments about traffic patterns, one of which is to be established on final no later than 1/4 mile from the runway.

So I have a question: assuming a 1000' pattern, how many lightplanes are capable of a true "short approach" if done at normal approach speed, full flaps, engine idle, starting at the abeam point?

Without slipping, I do not believe a Super Cub can do it. Yesterday my J-3 required a 3/8 mile final for such an approach. The Stearman comes down like a rock, but from a thousand feet it too seems to require more than a 1/4 mile final.

My friend Gary mentioned that he got dinged for doing a short approach without a clearance the other day, to which I suggested that a 206 would have a difficult time being inside the AIM normal pattern without either excess airspeed or a giant slip. We haven't tried it yet, but maybe this week.

So what, exactly, is a short approach? Has the FAA snuck in a new definition I am not aware of?
 
I routinely do short approaches to our 3600 foot xwind runway. My aim point to the runway is half to 2/3 the way down the runway at which I turn base to final. The turn to final I accomplish about 200 feet AGL. No comments from ATC they seem OK with it. Better have clearance for it as this is not typical or expected.
 
Maybe I'm just naive, but doesn't "make short approach" just mean "get that thing on the ground ASAP, subject to pilot's discretion"?

In other words, the AIM standard for being established on final at 1/4 mile out is waived, but not necessarily prohibited if needed for the aircraft and conditions?
 
Gary is a troublemaker. I suspect that is largely the problem :lol:

sj
 
A short approach, by definition means any time you start your base leg BEFORE your downwind leg reaches abeam the threshold of the runway. Any approach that goes beyond the approach end is NOT a short approach. It is assumed that any short approach will result in a landing down the runway. A short approach must be approved by ATC at tower controlled airports.

i generally use the phraseology: Nxxxx, request short approach, long landing. While a long landing does not require clearance (clearance to land clears you to use the runway...all of it if you choose) you’ll make more friends in ATC if you’re up front about your intentions.

At our Airport (~7000 feet) the taxiway that leads to my Hangar is 2/3 of the way from the “normal” approach end, so if traffic permits, I’ll ask ATC for short approach, long landing. They know where I’m going anyway. If the pattern is busy, I just follow traffic.

MTV
 
According to the 'Smart Flight training' guidelines:

“Make short approach” simply means that tower wants you to cut your downwind short and turn early for your base leg (see our traffic patterns post for more information). Air traffic control generally assumes that you will cut your normal distance between the numbers and your base leg in half, but depending on your aircraft, the runway length, etc, you could “make short approach” immediately abeam the numbers or even further down the runway.


 
bob turner said:
That is kind of what I was hoping to elicit. Got a source for that definition?
Click to expand...

Bob,

Heres the verbiage from the pilot/controller glossary “MAKE SHORT APPROACH− Used by ATC toinform a pilot to alter his/her traffic pattern so as to
make a short final approach.
(See TRAFFIC PATTERN.)”

i was told told by an ATC Chief that this means anything from about half the normal final distance to turning inside the abeam point of the approach end. He noted, however, that it is generally assumed that if you request a short approach, you are cleared to turn base inside the abeam point.

Obviously, there’s some wiggle room, but this gent said don’t EVER turn base prior to the abeam point without a short approach clearance. I’ve been doing it that way for years, including turning right over the tower on base, and never had a question from ATC.

MTV
 
Thanks Mike. I have quietly tried to discourage pilots from asking for short approaches if they intend a base leg greater than 1/4 mile beyond the abeam point. By requesting a short approach, they are educating the tower that anything less than a mile beyond is to be considered a short approach, and even some of my students are falling for that.

The tower knows my voice, and understands that my pattern is standard Cub, even when in a Mooney or 206. I do not leave pattern altitude until the abeam point. If a short approach is requested by them, they have a reason, and I accommodate - 100 mph and a slip, plus I can leave pattern altitude early.

Goes without saying that all this assumes a "#1" clearance.
 
When I am approaching KMKC in the Super Cub and I ask for a short approach, they know I am going to turn base INSIDE the runway 1000' bars and land 1/2 way down the runway - at least they have never complained and I do it all the time! Also make early turnouts well before the end of the runway. Different parts of the country though for sure.

sj
 
At Hood I've had ATC ask me to do short approaches several times, usually in the -12, but each time it was to improve spacing for whoever was behind me. They also ask to keep the downwind leg in close so the turn to base and final is not squared off. It makes sense when a Cessna is closing the distance on a slower plane with float planes on downwind for the lake, making it harder for the Cessna to extend.
 
Last edited:
stewartb said:
Why would anyone request a short approach? I've had ATC ask me to do short approaches several times, usually in the -12, but each time it was to improve spacing for whoever was behind me. They also ask to keep the downwind leg in close so the turn to base and final is not squared off. It makes sense when a Cessna is closing the distance on a slower plane with float planes on downwind for the lake, making it harder for the Cessna to extend.
Click to expand...

Because if I land at the end of the 7000' runway after a normal approach it is a 15 minute taxi to the middle of the field where the fuel pumps are. Short approach, long landing, off at intersection next to the fuel. Makes it super efficient for the tower not to have to wait on me putt-putting along down the runway.

sj
 
Good info and thanks...not everyone is a flight instructor or knows what you guys do.

Last BFR in a C-172 the instructor determined my engine had blown up passing the numbers. I said "don't get excited" and did a right turning slip with approach flaps already set and hit the numbers. Had to move his I-Pad out of the way to see. I guess that was what's called a short approach, but he was running the radio and I don't recall what was requested. Maybe they called him but I doubt that.

Gary
 
SJ said:
Because if I land at the end of the 7000' runway after a normal approach it is a 15 minute taxi to the middle of the field where the fuel pumps are. Short approach, long landing, off at intersection next to the fuel. Makes it super efficient for the tower not to have to wait on me putt-putting along down the runway.

sj
Click to expand...

I thought about you guys with long riunways and figured that out. I edited my question out prior to seeing your reply.
 
Short approaches are nice when you have 8,000' of runway and your destination is on the end you have entered a downwind. Instead of flying 1.5 miles of runway, plus more, then final and taxi back 1.5 miles of runway plus final approach you eat time and energy. Ask for a short approach, turn base at the 6,000 foot marker and be down and clear long before you would have touched down.
 
Hell, this is supposed to be a Cub forum. If the runway is 2500 feet, and I park off the far end, I’m going to ask for a short approach.....

MTV
 
So I have to ask. If you are in a Short 360, would the tower ask you for a "Short short approach"?
 
stewartb said:
I thought about you guys with long riunways and figured that out. I edited my question out prior to seeing your reply.
Click to expand...

Actually, quite commonly requested by tower for spacing also. If there was a concern about too short of approach, they would instruct you that you are number two (or five) behind someone and to keep an appropriate distance.

The home airport has 2500' of grass, but there is no fuel. Thus the trip to the towered airport eight or ten miles away (the closest cheap fuel) is a necessity.

sj
 
King Salmon has 9000 feet of runway and we are flying bushwheels. Tower spaces us based on knowing we will land in the last 1000 feet before our turnoff. We do that to minimize taxi on those soft tires, and they prefer it because they can slide us in ahead of other traffic.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
What motivated me to start this is Cherokee instructors, who are teaching our otherwise very competent tower folks that a normal approach is two miles out on final and a short approach is one mile. The tower starts expecting anyone who wants to shoot an idle/full flap approach from 1000' at the abeam point to get a clearance to do so. I am resisting. MTV has given me ammunition.

So far, no tower person has called me out for a Cub approach.

At Gillespie, the tower expects base legs east of a prominent freeway (among other unusual expectations). With that well-delineated expectation I always ask: "Piper Cub approach?" They always say yes. If and when Montgomery publishes such an expectation I will ask there too.
 
It has been a long time since I was instructing in Cherokees. As I recall I always used a "Piper Cub" type of approach. The PA-28s do these very well. No reason at all for Airliner approaches.
 
skywagon8a said:
It has been a long time since I was instructing in Cherokees. As I recall I always used a "Piper Cub" type of approach. The PA-28s do these very well. No reason at all for Airliner approaches.
Click to expand...

Cherokees/Warriors come down like a brick with full flaps and idle power. Those instructors need to start exploring the capabilities of the aircraft they’re instructing in..... Great Aircraft for short/steep approaches.

MTV
 
mvivion said:
Cherokees/Warriors come down like a brick with full flaps and idle power. Those instructors need to start exploring the capabilities of the aircraft they’re instructing in..... Great Aircraft for short/steep approaches.

MTV
Click to expand...
I'd agree with you when compared to a Cub. You should try a power off landing in a SeaBee sometime. :smile: Now that is an airplane which comes down like a streamlined anvil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Cleared to Land.
2
Replies
34
Views
12K
CamTom12
CamTom12
frequent_flyer
Short Approach
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
aktango58
aktango58
Bouncer
A little help with landing technique
2
Replies
42
Views
10K
8GCBC
8GCBC
Ruidoso Ron
Bad one here in Ruidoso today
Replies
3
Views
2K
Ruidoso Ron
Ruidoso Ron
rrb
Weak Radios and VFR pilots who forget the Visual part
2
Replies
49
Views
12K
mvivion
mvivion
Back
Top