Long Landing Approved

I fly a Cessna 150. My hanger is at the far end of the 11,000 foot
runway.
Our tower routinely offers landings with "long landing approved". Our
runway has distance remaining markers (and about 1,000 feet of paved
overrun space if the first 11,000 were not enough).

Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
I just want to know if there is a legal problem.

-Charles Talleyrand

P.S. Yes, I've tried. It's very easy to put the plane down in 2,000
feet, especially since there are no obstacles on the glideslope. With
any headwind I'm stopped within 1000 feet. And there is that
1,000 feet of overrun, which is unneeded but nice to have.

P.S. S. We have no crosswind runway. Sometimes I wish one could land
sideways on our huge piece of pavement. It's not quite wide enough,
but with a 20 mph wind ....

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
ups.com...

I fly a Cessna 150. My hanger is at the far end of the 11,000 foot
runway.
Our tower routinely offers landings with "long landing approved". Our
runway has distance remaining markers (and about 1,000 feet of paved
overrun space if the first 11,000 were not enough).

Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
I just want to know if there is a legal problem.


Make sure the tower knows what your intentions are. There's no legal
problem in any case, but you may surprise him and screw up his plans for
other traffic.

On 2 Oct 2006 23:11:05 -0700, "Charles Talleyrand"
wrote:

I fly a Cessna 150. My hanger is at the far end of the 11,000 foot
runway.
Our tower routinely offers landings with "long landing approved". Our
runway has distance remaining markers (and about 1,000 feet of paved
overrun space if the first 11,000 were not enough).

Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
I just want to know if there is a legal problem.

-Charles Talleyrand

P.S. Yes, I've tried. It's very easy to put the plane down in 2,000
feet, especially since there are no obstacles on the glideslope. With
any headwind I'm stopped within 1000 feet. And there is that
1,000 feet of overrun, which is unneeded but nice to have.

P.S. S. We have no crosswind runway. Sometimes I wish one could land
sideways on our huge piece of pavement. It's not quite wide enough,
but with a 20 mph wind ....


No problem at all. Just let the tower know what you are doing. I
frequently do that at KBGR when they are landing 15. GA parking is at the
other end.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote:
I fly a Cessna 150. My hanger is at the far end of the 11,000 foot
runway.
Our tower routinely offers landings with "long landing approved". Our
runway has distance remaining markers (and about 1,000 feet of paved
overrun space if the first 11,000 were not enough).

Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
I just want to know if there is a legal problem.

Perfectly legal. That's exactly what the tower has in mind when they say
"long landing approved".

Roy Smith wrote:
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote:
I fly a Cessna 150. My hanger is at the far end of the 11,000 foot
runway.
Our tower routinely offers landings with "long landing approved". Our
runway has distance remaining markers (and about 1,000 feet of paved
overrun space if the first 11,000 were not enough).

Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
I just want to know if there is a legal problem.

Perfectly legal. That's exactly what the tower has in mind when they say
"long landing approved".

Years ago I was having trouble learning to land. The instructor told
me to head for the airport with a 10,000 ft. "You can get in 3 landing
per pass." [As it turned out we started picking up some ice and had to
break off. But it was a good idea.]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
I just want to know if there is a legal problem.

I do this all the time at Syracuse, NY. The runway is 9,500 feet long and
my T-hangar is probably another 1,000 feet past the end of runway 28
(normally the main runway).

When I am landing rwy 28 I will request a long landing, which is almost
always approved (unless an airliner is breathing down my back), and when I
land on rwy 10 I practice my short field landings.

--
Peter

In a previous article, Stubby said:
Years ago I was having trouble learning to land. The instructor told
me to head for the airport with a 10,000 ft. "You can get in 3 landing
per pass." [As it turned out we started picking up some ice and had to

Good old instructor tricks. I was having problems learning to land on the
center line, so my instructor took me to a parachute center where he flew
jumpers. The runway was 1600 feet long and barely wider than my main
gear. Yeah, I landed on the center of that, but that also meant that I
landed with my left gear lined up with the edge of the runway. We went
back to KROC where I landed with my left wing overhanging the left edge of
the runway on a 150 foot wide runway. Not exactly what he'd hoped.

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
"I'll ask you plainly: Do you believe in an infallible power?"
"You mean like Google?" - Satch, Get Fuzzy.

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
I fly a Cessna 150. My hanger is at the far end of the 11,000 foot
runway.
Our tower routinely offers landings with "long landing approved". Our
runway has distance remaining markers (and about 1,000 feet of paved
overrun space if the first 11,000 were not enough).

Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
I just want to know if there is a legal problem.

-Charles Talleyrand

P.S. Yes, I've tried. It's very easy to put the plane down in 2,000
feet, especially since there are no obstacles on the glideslope. With
any headwind I'm stopped within 1000 feet. And there is that
1,000 feet of overrun, which is unneeded but nice to have.

P.S. S. We have no crosswind runway. Sometimes I wish one could land
sideways on our huge piece of pavement. It's not quite wide enough,
but with a 20 mph wind ....

There is no problem with this. We do it all the time. If we land on 28R
or 10L at BOI. We land long. We can move faster in the air than on the
ground. This reduces our taxi time and our time in ATC's hands. A Win
Win. 28L or 10R we land on the numbers. There are many air carriers here
and Southwest is know for coming in hot... I was told to keep up the
speed. I was doing about 120. I asked if 160 would keep us ahead of the
SW 737. The controller laughed and replied you are going to need another
100 knots. He is doing 250.

Michelle

When I got (and took) the chance to land at Newark (EWR) last year, I asked
to land long when I was assigned 4R so that I wouldn't have to taxi two
miles to the north end of the field where I needed to park. Tower said
"long landing approved, but be aware that you have an Airbus on a six-mile
final behind you". After I touched down Tower asked me to "Please expedite
your exit from the runway at high-speed taxiway Lima", which I did at around
50 knots. Tower then thanked me for expediting my departure, because the
Airbus was "now on a two-mile final". I hate to think what it would have
cost if I had made the Airbus go around.

On reflection, I'm sort of sorry now that I did land long. It would have
been fun taxiing up the field with the big boys. I can imagine passengers
looking out and seeing my little Archer puttering along. "Huh?!"

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
ups.com...
I fly a Cessna 150. My hanger is at the far end of the 11,000 foot
runway.
Our tower routinely offers landings with "long landing approved". Our
runway has distance remaining markers (and about 1,000 feet of paved
overrun space if the first 11,000 were not enough).

Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
I just want to know if there is a legal problem.

-Charles Talleyrand

P.S. Yes, I've tried. It's very easy to put the plane down in 2,000
feet, especially since there are no obstacles on the glideslope. With
any headwind I'm stopped within 1000 feet. And there is that
1,000 feet of overrun, which is unneeded but nice to have.

P.S. S. We have no crosswind runway. Sometimes I wish one could land
sideways on our huge piece of pavement. It's not quite wide enough,
but with a 20 mph wind ....

I've heard that going around can cost the entire profit from a typical
scheduled flight. But that may be just a rumor.


Bob Chilcoat wrote:
When I got (and took) the chance to land at Newark (EWR) last year, I asked
to land long when I was assigned 4R so that I wouldn't have to taxi two
miles to the north end of the field where I needed to park. Tower said
"long landing approved, but be aware that you have an Airbus on a six-mile
final behind you". After I touched down Tower asked me to "Please expedite
your exit from the runway at high-speed taxiway Lima", which I did at around
50 knots. Tower then thanked me for expediting my departure, because the
Airbus was "now on a two-mile final". I hate to think what it would have
cost if I had made the Airbus go around.

On reflection, I'm sort of sorry now that I did land long. It would have
been fun taxiing up the field with the big boys. I can imagine passengers
looking out and seeing my little Archer puttering along. "Huh?!"