BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 16:22

Whenever an airport authority updates its Master Plan (AMP), the FAA requires a runway operations analysis among many things. They look at the number of annual ops and the types of aircraft utilizing the airport. The FAA has subsequent criteria for runway dimensions (both length and width). If the ops don't match the facility, adjustment are made. For example, if a runway is 7,000' X 150', and it's primarily utilized by piston singles, the FAA might recommend re-dimensioning the runway. Perhaps 4,000' X 75'. When it comes time for a resurfacing grant, that's 1,050,000sf Vs. 300,000sf of resurfacing. I hate to see runways "downsized", but the feds are doing it from time to time to stretch their grant funds to where they want it to go.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2018, 13:30

To continue to :deadhorse:

http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/ ... -approach/

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Mar 2018, 13:54

The idea of landing prior to the touchdown zone (1,000 foot mark) is a checkride bust at SIMCOM.

BTW nobody took me up on my wager. :peace:

Money talks...b.s. walks boys. Just sayin.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Mar 2018, 16:09

Username Protected wrote:

The idea of landing prior to the touchdown zone (1,000 foot mark) is a checkride bust at SIMCOM.

BTW nobody took me up on my wager. :peace:

Money talks...b.s. walks boys. Just sayin.

SIMCOM checks using the PTS as guidance, correct? If what you’re saying is accurate, then they’re going outside the PTS which states:

Quote:

For all landings, touch down at the aiming point markings - 250' to +500' or where there are no runway aiming point markings, 750' to 1,500' from the approach threshold of the runway.

Citation at Steamboat