Read on Twitter
I'm confused by people saying tabletop runways require extra precise piloting. They don't. We aim to land on centerline, in the touchdown zone, and stop well before the end of ALL runways, regardless of their surrondings; cliffs, water, fields, buildings.
Kozhikode has a plateu runway but so do many other places in the world. And at 2860 meters long, it's plenty long enough to make excursions entirely avoidable. The surrondings should be irrelevant when it comes to stable approaches and accurate handling during the landing.
There's no guesswork in landing a commercial aircraft - we crunch the numbers to determine the landing performance, and have set criteria to achieve a safe approach and landing.
If either the stable criteria or the perf numbers don't match what we need, it's time to go around.
If either the stable criteria or the perf numbers don't match what we need, it's time to go around.
Here’s an example of landing performance: we plop in the weather, aircraft weight & configuration and any abnormals.
It cooks some numbers, adds a side portion of safety margin, and tells us our landing distances with LO and MED autobrakes as well as max manual brakes.
It cooks some numbers, adds a side portion of safety margin, and tells us our landing distances with LO and MED autobrakes as well as max manual brakes.
We also get a menu of possible runway states, all of which would have an effect on the landing distance calculation.
All carefully calculated. We do *not* just eyeball the runway out the window and go “Meh, looks long enough to me!”
All carefully calculated. We do *not* just eyeball the runway out the window and go “Meh, looks long enough to me!”
Of course, all of the numbers are irrelevant if you don't land within the touchdown zone at the correct speed, then decelerate using the tools available (brakes, rev thrust, spoilers) - which is why a stable approach is essential, and a go-around is mandatory if this isn't met.
