Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Arrival
Reduce power earlier on approach to be at 139 kt by the stabilisation gate, not just by the threshold.
What happened: The approach was too fast at the stabilisation gate, crossing the threshold at 138 kt against a VREF of 139 kt.
Watch for: Airspeed indicator against 139 kt at the stabilisation gate.
See Arrival Approach
Preparing for a stable approach will give you time to decide on whether to attempt the landing or going around. Too much altitude with a high sink rate will result in carrying too much speed onto the runway. Configuring flaps and the gear late also won't help the speed decay.
Read more in The Stabilised ApproachStart to finish · 19 stages, 17 scored
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.
Two stabilised approach gates, each with seven checks, where the approach path is 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway. They are the approach's score: the checks passed out of the checks that ran.
At the 1,000 ft gate: speed 47 kt FAST on the reference speed of 139 kt.
At the 500 ft gate: speed 28 kt FAST on the reference speed of 139 kt.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 1,576 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,576 m of the 2,698 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 221 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Departing from Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport (KMSP), the Boeing 737-800 began its journey by taxiing from the parking area to the runway, a process that took 7 minutes and covered a distance of 2 nautical miles. As the aircraft lined up on runway 12L, it was met with a local weather condition of 26 °C temperature and a wind of 20 kt at 150 °, resulting in a 10 kt crosswind and an 18 kt headwind. The takeoff roll commenced, and the aircraft lifted off the ground at a speed of 154 kt, utilizing 64% of the available runway length of 1,544 meters.
As the aircraft climbed to its initial cruising altitude, it began its ascent from 1,703 feet above sea level to 34,711 feet, a vertical increase of 33,009 feet in 20 minutes, covering a distance of 144 nautical miles. The climb phase was followed by a level cruise, which started 1 mile northwest of John's Field Athens (52WI) and lasted for 96 minutes, covering a distance of 784 nautical miles. The aircraft then began its descent, initially from 35,185 feet to 5,241 feet in 12 minutes, covering 79 nautical miles. This was followed by a series of short level cruises and descents, with the final descent starting 2 miles northwest of Randolph (Massachusetts), USA, and ending at 1,293 feet above sea level.
The Boeing 737-800 then began its final approach to runway 04R at Logan International Airport (KBOS), descending from 1,255 feet above ground level at a heading of 20.0 °. The aircraft touched down on the runway at a speed of 136 kt, with a touchdown distance of 219 meters. The landing was deemed satisfactory, with a firm touchdown rate of -389 feet per minute. However, the runway touchdown position was slightly misaligned by 7.2 meters from the centerline. The aircraft then taxied to the parking area, a process that took 5 minutes and covered a distance of 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 1,053 nautical miles, with a total fuel consumption of 6,145 kilograms and a flight duration of 151 minutes.
The Boeing 737-800 touched down on runway 04R at KBOS Logan International Airport with a good threshold height, allowing the crew to maintain a stable approach profile. The threshold speed of 138 kt was well within the acceptable range, indicating a smooth transition from the approach to the landing phase. The aircraft's touchdown distance of 219 m was also satisfactory, demonstrating a controlled descent.
However, the touchdown speed of 136 kt was slightly above the optimal range, resulting in a firm touchdown rate of -389 fpm. This may have contributed to the slight misalignment of the runway touchdown position, which was 7.2 m off the centreline. The local weather conditions, with a temperature of 7 °C, may have played a role in the slightly faster-than-ideal touchdown speed.
The total landing distance of 1,500 m, accounting for 64% of the runway length, was within acceptable limits. The runway rollout alignment was also slightly misaligned, by 8.0 m from the centreline, which may have been a result of the firm touchdown and subsequent braking action. Overall, the landing performance scored 94.5%, indicating a high level of proficiency and control throughout the approach, touchdown, and rollout phases.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values