Antonio wrote:
I am just not brave or motivated enough to try it at LFIP…why would I (honest question)?
Very true the C210 seems to land just fine that way and if it works fine do not change too much. Just ideas where additional meters could probably be gained for even bigger planes or landing the same plane on even shorter runways (but probably no runway with similar shape just shorter exists). Probably a different story for flat runways as they are available in all sizes so when you get those landings shorter and shorter more destinations open up.
gallois wrote:
Am I right in thinking the 0 flap position as opposed to the 10 degree flap setting brought you in flatter and lower (which would be normal on the Jodel) but that also required keeping power (or more power ) on into the round out (which again would be normal for the Jodel especially with a steep upslope).
The 210 like most Cessnas has four flap positions: 0, 10, 20 and FULL.
I have never tried, and cannot recommend, an altiport approach and landing with anything other than with full flaps.
This was also one of the contributing factors (too low flap setting) in the Courchevel PA/46 runway overrun accident.
I was only referring to the landing rollout (after landing). On the 210 if you brake immediately after landing you can easily slide the tires, damaging them and losing brake effectiveness. Setting flaps up after landing maximizes available braking. This could be a marginal advantage on the altiport since speed wanes so quickly anyway, but in general it gives a landing runway required advantage vs braking on full flaps. Even the POH cautions that if you move the yoke forwards immediately after landing with full flaps, there will be zero weight on the mains. This is especially so with a fwd CG.
Retracting flaps might have helped brake during the referred Courchevel PA46 accident.
On some aircraft this is not an advisable proposition due to the potential to fiddle with the wrong lever (gear?) during the landing run.
Some instructors advise to never change or touch anything on the ground after landing until you have left the runway.
Some instructors advise to never change or touch anything on the ground after landing until you have left the runway.
That is probably because it is easy to raise the gear by mistake, and then a little bump can unload the squat switches and the gear comes up 
It’s been done.
On the other topic, I started this thread.
Sebastian_G wrote:
a different story for flat runways
Yes. The POH procedure for the 210 is, once obstacles are cleared on the approach end of the runway, to actually close the throttle on short field landings while lowering the nose to minimize landing runway required. Airspeed is thus maintained despite the throttle being closed and thus there is enough energy for the subsequent flare. But that is a different matter since there is no concern about a 1000ft/min touchdown if you do so at the wrong spot: you are simply minimizing overall energy ASAP for the shortest landing distance.
Example here landing at Bagneres de Luchon, the other airfield referred in this trip report
Thèse rugby pôles ideally located…
Yup, who needs highway-in-the-sky synthetic vision to guide you to the runway when you can use rugby poles in the sky ;)
We can have fun telling about transforming a landing try by getting right between the poles, but actually a player could really hit a plane on final while trying to transform… If it didn’t happen yet, Murphy’s law whispers that it is going to, one day or another…
Let’s see….goal posts are 530m from displaced threshold, so at 3deg-5% glideslope one should be about 90ft high on approach at that point.
Assuming standard rugby goalpost height of 53ft and since ground level is about 5ft higher at the goal than the threshold, that leaves aircraft 32ft above the goalposts on approach. Not a lot but reasonable…
I see a bigger risk of being distracted by watching the game on approach than being hit by the ball, but something to consider…
As the author of the video I have to say that it reminded me of the well known text on US car side mirrors, “objects are closer than they appear”. Nonetheless I felt completely fine with Antonio’s flying skills, and we only spend about 15 minutes removing the leaves from the belly after that downwind leg.
While on downwind I asked him politely whether it would not be time to lower the gear, and he said “that will only increase the belly cleaning time after landing”.
As you know, I’m just joking, Antonio is a pro.
Oh, no! You are disclosing all of my tricks…
aart wrote:
removing the leaves from the belly after that downwind leg
since we did not have the luxury of airbrakes, how else would we generate the required drag to go from the altiport to an airfield three and a half (thousand feet) below but only twice as many nautical miles away…
aart wrote:
time to lower the gear
True: we did not extend the gear on downwind, but neither on base, or on final. Worse still, neither did we at any other point of that flight, for that matter.
You would be forgiven for thinking the belly leaves then ended up mingled with the runway grass and a bit of mud from the subsequent belly landing as was to be expected after such an offending omission but alas, it was not to be…we had also conveniently forgotten to retract the gear after the prior take-off, and judging by the rolling acceleration, it must have been extended at that time. This explained the otherwise abnormal 20KIAS reduction in cruise speed during flight, which after all came in handy for the aforementioned descent while keeping the old Contisaurus somewhat alive and resulted in an otherwise unlikely arrival overhead the landing field at circuit height…
You are too kind @aart, only an expert aviator like you would appreciate the flight smoothness of what less knowledgeable pilots would only see as hamfisted yoke wiggling while I tried to make the bird do as intended in an effort to convince you that the 210 is not the truck we all know it is…
