For the rules I found an ICAO report => https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/EnvironmentalReports/2016/ENVReport2016_pg27-29.pdf which basically gives the same info (maybe with a different scale due to the fact the report is about jet engines I believe). Bern/Belp airport has a special noise reduction training for example which basically points out exactly that: Vx at start to be quickly clear of obstacles, then Vy to reduce noise.
Sorry for the misspelling
As said, here we have either aiming point advertised on the VFR maps or if not, then you MUST point out to land just after the threshold:
@anon50268670
Applying full breaks? We never do that to avoid to blow our tires.
Those are the standard we are trained here. Not special for us. As I said, if that’s different in your country, then sure, let’s change the title and specify where it applies / when it applies.
For the Vx / Vy rules => our training is the following (for example on a Katana DV20). Full throttle and full RPM at start (around 2500), once we lift off, we aim for Vx speed. Once Vx is established (which means we have at least Vx stable), we reduce the RPM (around 2400). After 50ft (or clear of obstacles), we set the flaps up, remove the fuel pump and aim for Vy. Once Vy is stable, we do the climb check.
While the rules should be standard, across at least most of the world, there is differences. Even for example in the radio. In Switzerland you don’t do an initial call while contacting an airport only for ATC. In Germany you always do. In Italy you must be all the time in contact with the ATC while flying over the country and call them at least every 30 min.
1.I don’t see how this ICAO document applies to all Swiss airports and it doesn’t even mention Switzerland?
I don’t see Vx, or Vy mentioned anywhere in the LSZB NAP?
The NAP even mentions that a rolling take off shall be executed which somewhat contradicts a climb at Vx.
Can’t tell you why it is not fully and clearly documented. Maybe it’s a “nice practice” but as there is no official rules about it (at least yet) or it’s quite difficult for anybody outside the aircraft to evaluate it, they simply not put them in the official documentation. But I can tell you that all the IF here around do tell you to do that kind of procedure.
Google translate says:
“In Switzerland, noise pollution is legally regulated by the Noise Protection Ordinance. Bern Airport, the airlines and pilots are required to provide various measures and training courses such as B. to promote noise courses, noise-reducing behavior (e.g. flight route, climb / descent). Periodic noise measurements show that the limit values are being adhered to with clear reserves.”
Yes I meant maximum safe braking obviously. I’m flying all over Europe, a landing or take-off is not different all of a sudden from one country to the next. Sure one airport might prescribe NADP 1/2 or A/B for climb-out but otherwise no different.
It seems to me you are specifying your writings to one particular aircraft type (DV-20), do you have experience flying any other aircraft? I personally have flown a lot of GA aircraft, the DV-20 is not one of them. Those procedures sound really odd to me, I have never flown any aircraft where you fiddle around with speeds; flaps, pumps and power settings at 50 ft screen height. Especially flaps-up at 50 ft?! Never heard of that.
Edit: I just looked up a DV-20 POH, no idea if it is the right version. I think this 50 ft is taken too literally. It mentions 50 ft as a note regarding obstacle climb only. It doesn’t mention anywhere to retract flaps and reduce RPM at 50 ft, instead it states “at a safe height”.
NADP 1 → power reduction at 800 ft, acceleration to en-route climb speed and flap retraction 3000 ft.
NADP A → power reduction at 1500 ft, acceleration to en-route climb speed and flap retraction 3000 ft.
For noise sensitive areas further away from the airport:
NADP 2 → power reduction and flap retraction at 800 ft, acceleration to en-route climb speed at 3000 ft.
NADP B → power reduction and flap retraction at 1500 ft, acceleration to en-route climb speed at 3000 ft.
Some airports have slight modifications to the procedures as described above, the idea remains the same. None of those procedures describe the use of either Vx or Vy, rather V2 + 10 to 20 kts and Vzf + 10 to 20 kts.
Those procedures are meant to be followed by jets and larger turboprops. If a noise abatement procedure is established, this is always published in the states AIP and therefore included on Jeppesen or Navblue charts.
Yes: Pipers (PA28-181 and PA-18), Robin DR400, Sonaca 201 Turbo.
The power reduction is there also with the Sonaca where you remove the turbo after initial climb out for example. On the others you don’t have the power reduction here but you do have the change of attitude / speed as well as of course the flaps.
Other example, the check lists we receive for the piper 181:
The problem is the 50 ft for RPM reduction, flap retraction and fuel pump - off you described before. That can’t be right, and it isn’t if I look up the DV-20 procedures myself it states “at a safe height” not “at 50 ft”. Usually all this stuf isn’t done before 400 / 500 ft. Also that checklist looks alright, doesn’t specify at what altitude to do all that stuff, as before usually not before 400 / 500 ft.
By the way, where does it mention to touchdown just after the threshold?
These are the aiming points, its where you start the flare, touchdown occurs after the aiming point markers within the touchdown zone. The runway is long enough for a single engine piston so no need to cross the threshold at 0 ft and risk an undershoot.
As I said, in Switzerland we are trained to land just after the threshold if there is no published touchdown position. It doesn’t mean that what you are saying is wrong it is simply made a bit differently by the people trained here. For the PPL check we must touch down within the first 100m after threshold or within the first 100m after the published touch down position. Of course before those points is also a no go.
I don’t think Swiss pilots are trained any differently, as PZL says you are describing a short-field landing technique, which as far as I know is part of the PPL skill test as you say, same as precision / spot landing. So even on a long runway you ignore the PAPI and land short? Very strange procedure.
You can of course choose to touchdown anywhere on the runway, even aiming for the middle of the runway and perform a “long landing” if the runway is long. You can do all of that when flying GA, still this doesn’t make it standard. When you fly commercially its a little different as every landing is performed the same way.
When flying an airliner, it works like this: if you need to change your landing technique in order to land safely the runway is considered too short and you simply can’t land there. The landing performance charts are always from 50 ft screen-height to full stop. For added safety, the aircraft needs to be able to land within 70% of the LDA for turboprops and 60% LDA for jets, taking into account runway conditions.
When I was a flight instructor we used the same procedures as airliners do, but we were training people for their ATPL(A) so maybe a little different. We used the POH landing distance corrected for runway slope, surface etc. and then factored by 1.43 (70% LDA). If the runway was too short we simply didn’t land there. Short-field and precision landings where only performed for training, not as a necessity.
As odd as it may seems to you, you need to accept that we don’t receive all the same training. I dough into my old PPL theory material and look what I found:
Sorry it’s in German. However you clearly see that the aiming point is BEFORE the runway /Threshold with the goal to land just after it. BTW no that’s not for short field landing, that’s the general rule we are told to use.
Personally I would consider the general approach of not landing at the beginning of the runway smarter if you do have enough runway length but that’s how we was trained here.
I found also (only partially) some info about the climb and the change of attitude (which appears at 50ft above the obstacles):
At the change of attitude in some aircraft (Katana DV 20) as I said before, we do change the power settings as well.
Anyhow, I don’t say what you are telling is wrong, not at all. I’m just pointing out that we do get a different training content, and I would appreciate that not everything said is considered as bogus by default.
Yet for the content of this forum, I would agree that maybe this “How-To” should be rewritten with more general rules, but as you see, I’m then not the most appropriate person to write them due to my specific training.
BTW if you wonder from where do I get those training documents:
It’s taken from the SwissPSA Operations Manual (2016)
And those are the one I received while doing my PPL.
Yeah but RPM reduction should not take place at 50 ft screen height, the DV-20 POH describes “at a safe height”. Regarding the different “normal landing” you have been taught, is that official information or something someone at some flight school sucked out of his big toe?
All in all I find it a fascinating procedure, also the “idle gate”, why would you cut the power before start of flare? You should be approaching with a speed equal to Vs + 30%, further reduction before start of flare is neither necessary, nor safe. It seems to me like someone thought he knows it better than the rest of the aviation industry and dreamed this up.
The DV-20 POH does not mention any technique like that, and that is the only official source I use when I’m flying a GA aircraft. Also I won’t land an aircraft anywhere unless landing distance required (from 50 ft to stop) is less than landing distance available.
Its really simple in my opinion, if the threshold would be touchdown point for a normal approach and landing, they would have placed the PAPI, glide slope antenna and the aiming point markers in front of the runway instead of 300 m from the threshold.
As I said, those are the official trainings we get from the SwissPSA (which is the biggest GA school association in Switzerland). But I do fully understand your points.
Note that figure does not say anything about taking any action at 50 feet above the runway. All it says is that transitioning to Vx speed after takeoff will clear obstacles by at least 50 feet and that you should not transition to Vy speed until you are clear of said obstacles.
That landing procedure is a recipe for disaster if used for normal landings.
It can be misinterpretation from the DV-20 POH as well when not seeing the note above power reduction as a separate thing. Although it mentions twice “at a safe height”.
Save height. For me that’s always the height at which I can turn around and land with a failed engine.
And that’s exactly what happened to me once: I turned the fuel pump off and the engine stopped.
I thought; that’s an easy one. Just 1 second ago I had decided to turn around if the engine would fail.
For the fuel pump yes, I believe the Socata’s I flew states to have fuel pump running anytime below 1000 ft. Regarding flaps, climb power etc., definitely not below 400/500 ft. Maybe a little different on the Socata as it has the glide ratio of a piano, and the climb performance of one as well . You won’t make it back at any point .
. You won’t make it back at any point 
.