Events
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 · 24 stages, 22 scored
Events
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 3,333 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 789 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Overall, while the aircraft landing score of 84.6% is decent, there are some areas that can be improved upon to achieve a higher score in the future.
Starting with the Approach Phase, it is noted that there was a poor descent path above the glideslope limit. This indicates that the aircraft may have been descending too quickly or too steeply, which can result in a less stable approach and potentially a harder landing. To improve this, pilots can focus on maintaining a stabilized descent profile throughout the approach, ensuring they stay within the glideslope limits provided by the instrument landing system.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, it is observed that the threshold height was above the target and there was a very poor landing flare. The threshold height being above the target could indicate that the aircraft was too high on approach, leading to a hard landing or a landing further down the runway than desired. Improving the landing flare, which is the technique used to smoothly transition from descent to touchdown, can help achieve a smoother and more controlled landing.
In the Touchdown Phase, it is noted that the touchdown rate was good and the speed was on target, which are positive aspects of the landing. However, the touchdown point being 397 meters beyond the touchdown zone and the runway touchdown position being 4.2 meters from the centerline can be improved upon. Pilots can work on accurately judging their touchdown point and ensuring they land within the designated touchdown zone for optimal runway utilization.
Lastly, in the Rollout Phase, it is mentioned that the runway alignment was 3.9 meters from the centerline. Maintaining accurate runway alignment is crucial for a safe landing and rollout, as deviations can lead to directional control issues. Pilots should focus on keeping the aircraft centered on the runway throughout the rollout phase to improve their overall landing performance.
In conclusion, while there were some areas for improvement identified in the landing score analysis, it is important to view these as learning opportunities and areas for growth. By addressing these issues and focusing on maintaining a smooth and controlled approach and landing, pilots can continue to improve their landing scores and overall flying skills. With practice and dedication, higher landing scores can be achieved in the future. Keep up the good work and continue striving for excellence in all aspects of your flying performance!
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values