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 · 16 stages, 14 scored
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 for a circuit: five checks where the approach path is 500 ft above the runway. The 1,000 ft gate is an instrument-approach check and does not apply.
Side view — the last 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 1,798 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 795 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Vision Jet began with a taxi from the parking area to the runway at EHRD Rotterdam The Hague Airport, which took 3 minutes to cover less than 1 nm. The departure roll from runway 06 was 708 m, which was 39% of the total runway length. The liftoff speed was 102 knots.
During departure, the local weather conditions were as follows: Temperature was 10 °C with a wind speed of 15 knots coming from 220 °. There was a crosswind of 4 knots and a tailwind of 14 knots.
The flight followed a right-hand pattern entry from runway 06 and the distance covered was less than 1 nm in 19 seconds. This was followed by a right-hand pattern crosswind from the same runway, covering less than 1 nm in 3 seconds.
After completing the pattern entry and crosswind legs, the flight transitioned to the pattern downwind turn, covering 1 nm with an angle to the runway of 22.4 °. The downwind leg covered less than 1 nm in 15 seconds.
The flight then executed the pattern base leg turn, covering 1 nm with an angle to the runway of 146.3 °. The base leg itself covered less than 1 nm in 12 seconds.
As the flight entered the final turn, the distance was less than 1 nm and took 104 seconds to complete. The landing on runway 06 at EHRD Rotterdam The Hague Airport took place with a runway length of 1,798 m. The height at threshold was 88 feet above ground level, with a speed of 104 knots.
The touchdown occurred 709 m from the threshold at a speed of 77 knots and a Vertical Speed Indicator (VSI) reading of -90 ft/m. The local weather during landing was 9 °C with a wind speed of 20 knots from 213 °. There was a crosswind of 8 knots and a tailwind of 18 knots.
The total landing distance was 867 m, which was 48% of the runway length. The total flight distance covered was 4 nm, taking 8 minutes and utilizing 15 kg of fuel.
Let's start by acknowledging the positives of the aircraft landing score of 83.2%. This indicates that a majority of the landing process was executed effectively. However, there are areas that need improvement based on the analysis provided.
The speed of the aircraft was slightly above target during landing, which may have contributed to the challenges faced. It is important to ensure that the speed is well within the recommended range to facilitate a smoother and safer landing.
The Landing Phase highlighted some key issues, such as a significantly above target threshold height, very poor landing flare, and poor bank angle stability during landing. These factors can impact the overall smoothness and safety of the landing. It is crucial for the pilot to work on maintaining a stable approach and execution during the landing phase to improve these aspects.
In the Touchdown Phase, while the touchdown rate and speed were on target, there were concerns about the touchdown point being 282 m beyond the touchdown zone and the runway touchdown position being 3.0 m from the centerline. Additionally, the warning about landing with an 18 kn tailwind should not be overlooked, as this can pose significant challenges during touchdown. It is essential to focus on achieving a precise touchdown within the designated zone and maintaining alignment with the centerline for optimal safety and efficiency.
The Rollout Phase feedback indicated that the runway alignment was very good, which is a positive note. It is crucial to continue this precision and focus on maintaining alignment throughout the rollout phase to ensure a successful and smooth landing process.
Overall, while the landing score of 83.2% is a good starting point, there are key areas for improvement highlighted in the analysis. By addressing issues such as speed control, approach stability, touchdown precision, and runway alignment, the pilot can work towards achieving a higher level of performance in future landings. It is important to approach these areas with diligence and commitment to enhance the overall safety and effectiveness of the landing process.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values