Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Configure earlier
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 · 18 stages, 16 scored
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Two stabilised approach gates, each with five checks, where the approach path is 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway.
At the 1,000 ft gate: sink rate above what the glideslope needed.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 2,317 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 102 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
A flight took place from Pisa International Airport (LIRP), located in the region of Toscana, Italy to Birmingham International Airport (EGBB) in the United Kingdom. The aircraft used was a Boeing 737-800. The taxiing process from the parking area to the runway took approximately 4 minutes, covering a distance of less than 1 nautical mile.
On departure, the aircraft utilized runway 22R, and its takeoff distance covered 43% of the runway, measuring 1,084 meters. The liftoff speed reached was 154 knots, and the aircraft encountered local weather conditions of 29°C temperature and wind speeds of 12 knots at 229°.
The enroute climb began approximately 1 mile south-west of LIRP, Pisa, and the aircraft ascended from an altitude of 1,042 feet above sea level to 37,957 feet, a vertical increase of 36,915 feet, in 23 minutes, covering a distance of 151 nautical miles. The airspeed conditions remained the same during this part of the flight.
Subsequently, the enroute level cruise commenced about 1 mile north-east of the Italian town of Torre Canavese. This segment of the flight lasted for 55 minutes, covering a distance of 438 nautical miles. The aircraft then initiated the enroute descent from an altitude of 37,756 feet above sea level to 1,513 feet, a decrease of 36,243 feet, in 31 minutes, covering 121 nautical miles.
Upon reaching the descent phase, the aircraft proceeded to begin the final approach to runway 33 at EGBB, Birmingham International Airport. The approach was made from the south-east, with a heading of 325° at an altitude of 1,194 feet above ground level and 4 nautical miles from the threshold. The weather conditions during this phase were characterized by a temperature of 13°C and wind speeds of 16 knots at 0°.
Upon landing, the aircraft landed on runway 33, which has a length of 2,317 meters. The threshold height was good, and the threshold speed was also within acceptable limits at 135 knots. The touchdown distance was 102 meters, and while the touchdown speed was at 136 knots, it was somewhat faster than ideal. Moreover, the touchdown rate was quite hard, measuring -569 feet per minute, and the runway touchdown position was displaced by 11.1 meters from the centreline.
Following the landing, the taxiing process from the runway to the parking area took approximately 3 minutes and covered less than 1 nautical mile. In total, the flight covered a distance of 717 nautical miles, took 118 minutes, and utilized 4,942 kilograms of fuel.
The Boeing 737-800 aircraft successfully completed a landing at EGBB Birmingham International Airport, but the performance was not without some notable issues. The approach was completed from the southeast, heading 325.0° towards the runway, and the aircraft landed approximately 4 nautical miles out at an altitude of 1,194 feet above ground level.
The touch-down was executed well, with the threshold speed being good at 135 knots. The touchdown distance was also satisfactory at 102 meters. However, the aircraft landed with a speed of 136 knots, which was slightly faster than ideal. Furthermore, the rate of descent was very hard, reaching -569 feet per minute. This may indicate that the pilots did not use a sufficiently smooth descent, potentially placing strain on the aircraft.
Another notable issue was the position of the aircraft's touch-down on the runway. It deviated from the centerline by 11.1 meters, which could potentially increase the risk of a veer-off. This misalignment during final approach and runway touch-down may be due to crosswinds or improper aircraft alignment.
During the landing, the aircraft encountered a relatively strong headwind of 13 knots and some crosswind, but these conditions were not extreme. The runway conditions were also favorable, with a good threshold height. In comparison to the total runway length, the landing distance of 585 meters was relatively short, coming out within 25% of the available runway.
During the rollout of the aircraft after touch-down, it was observed that the rollout alignment of the aircraft was once again misaligned by 17.0 meters from the centerline. This may indicate a continued underdampened oscillation in the pitch axis.
In general, while the landing was satisfactory, it would benefit from improvement in terms of speed at touch-down and rate of descent. Moreover, a more accurate alignment during approach and touch-down would help to reduce the risk of accidents.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values