Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Work on the flare
Arrive slow and the sink rate at the threshold is already above schedule, the flare is short because there is no energy to extend it, and the touchdown is hard in a way that feels exactly like a late flare. Diagnosing a slow arrival as a late flare is the catastrophic misread: you respond by flaring earlier, which bleeds more speed, which makes the next one worse. The tiebreaker is threshold speed against VRef, not feel. Never diagnose a flare without it.
Read more in Flare TimingStart to finish · 19 stages, 17 scored
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
The threshold, the flare and the hold-off. The approach that led to it is the stabilisation gates below.
One stabilised approach gate: five checks where the approach path is 500 ft above the runway. The 1,000 ft gate was not assessed, because the approach did not join final that far out.
Side view — the last 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 3,044 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 747 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with a taxiing period from the parking to the runway, which took 10 minutes and covered a distance of 3 nautical miles. The aircraft, a Boeing 737-900, then departed from runway 09R at London Heathrow Airport (EGLL). The takeoff distance was 1,927 meters, which accounted for 58% of the runway. The liftoff speed was 174 knots.
As the aircraft took to the skies, it encountered local weather conditions of 12°C temperature and a wind speed of 5 knots at 40°. The crosswind was 4 knots, while the headwind was 3 knots. The enroute climb started 1 mile north of Feltham, Greater London, England, and the aircraft climbed from 1,075 feet above sea level to 33,478 feet above sea level, an increase of 32,403 feet in 20 minutes, covering a distance of 119 nautical miles.
The enroute level cruise began 1 mile southwest of Tideswell, Derbyshire, England, and lasted for 125 minutes, covering a distance of 817 nautical miles. The aircraft then started its enroute descent 15 miles south of Skógasandur Airport, Skógar, Sudurland, Iceland, and descended from 32,619 feet above sea level to 1,735 feet above sea level, a decrease of 30,884 feet in 19 minutes, covering a distance of 93 nautical miles.
The aircraft then initiated another climb 1 mile east of Gardur, Sudurnes, Iceland, and climbed from 1,731 feet above sea level to 1,902 feet above sea level, an increase of 171 feet in 2 minutes, covering a distance of 3 nautical miles. The final approach to runway 19 at Keflavik International Airport (BIKF) was made from the north, heading 187.0° at 2 nautical miles and 1,694 feet above ground level.
The landing on runway 19 at BIKF was notable for several factors. The threshold height was significantly above the target, and the threshold speed was well above the target at 151 knots. The touchdown point was 327 meters beyond the touchdown zone, and the touchdown speed was 152 knots, which was fast. The touchdown rate was fair at -205 feet per minute. Additionally, the runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 16.3 meters from the centerline.
The local weather conditions at the time of landing were 6°C temperature and a wind speed of 37 knots at 170°. The crosswind was 6 knots, while the headwind was 37 knots. The total landing distance was 1,404 meters, which accounted for 46% of the runway. The runway rollout alignment was also misaligned by 16.0 meters from the centerline. The taxiing period from the runway to the parking took 7 minutes and covered a distance of 1 nautical mile.
The total flight distance was 1,041 nautical miles, and the flight duration was 185 minutes. The aircraft used 8,679 kilograms of fuel during the flight.
The Boeing 737-900 aircraft successfully landed at Keflavik International Airport (BIKF) on runway 19, but the landing was not without its challenges. The aircraft scored 75.5% on its landing, indicating that there were some areas for improvement. The final approach to the runway was initiated from the north, heading 187.0° at 2 nautical miles and 1,694 feet above ground level (agl).
Upon landing, the aircraft touched down 327 meters beyond the touchdown zone, which is significantly off-target. The touchdown speed of 152 knots was also faster than the target speed, indicating that the pilot may have been unable to slow the aircraft down sufficiently before touchdown. The touchdown rate of -205 feet per minute (fpm) was considered fair, suggesting that the aircraft was able to slow down relatively quickly after touchdown.
One of the most notable issues with this landing was the significant misalignment of the runway touchdown position, which was off-centerline by 16.3 meters. This suggests that the pilot may have had difficulty aligning the aircraft with the runway during the final approach. The runway rollout alignment was also misaligned by 16.0 meters from centerline, indicating that the pilot may have had difficulty maintaining control of the aircraft during the rollout phase.
The local weather conditions at the time of the landing were relatively calm, with a temperature of 6°C and a wind speed of 37 knots from 170°. The crosswind component was relatively light at 6 knots, while the headwind component was significant at 37 knots. These conditions may have contributed to the challenges faced by the pilot during the landing.
Overall, while the Boeing 737-900 aircraft was able to land safely at Keflavik International Airport, the landing was not without its issues. The pilot will need to work on improving their skills in order to achieve a more accurate and controlled landing.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values