Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Shorten the long landing
Ground effect becomes significant below about one wingspan of height. A Cessna 172, with a 36 ft span, enters ground effect at flare height - the float it feels in the hold-off is ground effect arriving on cue. An A320, with a span around 117 ft, has been in ground effect since before the threshold and there is no sudden cushion to feel, only a gradual reduction in induced drag that lengthens any float you allow.
Read more in Flare TimingStart to finish · 21 stages, 19 scored
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 3,077 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 358 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Overall, the aircraft landing score of 94.1% is quite impressive and reflects a high level of skill and proficiency in executing the various phases of the landing process. Let's break down the analysis of each phase to understand what went well and where there is room for improvement.
In the Approach Phase, the excellent glideslope alignment indicates that the pilot was able to maintain the correct vertical descent path leading up to the runway. This is a critical aspect of a successful landing and demonstrates precision and control.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, it is encouraging to see that the threshold height and landing flare were executed well. The threshold height refers to the point at which the aircraft crosses the runway threshold, and a good landing flare ensures a smooth transition from descent to touchdown. These factors contribute to a stable and controlled landing.
In the Touchdown Phase, there are some areas that could be improved. The touchdown rate being very hard suggests that the aircraft made contact with the runway with excessive force, which can lead to undue stress on the landing gear and possibly discomfort for passengers. Additionally, having the speed slightly above target could have contributed to the hard touchdown. Ensuring that the appropriate speed is maintained during the descent is crucial for a smooth landing.
Furthermore, the touchdown distance being inside the touchdown zone is positive, as it indicates that the aircraft landed within the designated area of the runway. However, the runway touchdown position being 2.4 meters from the centerline suggests a slight deviation from the desired alignment. This is an area where greater precision could be achieved in future landings.
Lastly, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment being 6.6 meters from the centerline indicates that there was some lateral drift during the rollout after touchdown. Maintaining runway alignment is important for a safe and efficient landing, so working on this aspect can help improve overall performance.
In conclusion, while this landing score of 94.1% is a commendable achievement, there are specific areas for improvement that can further enhance the pilot's skills and proficiency. By focusing on honing techniques such as maintaining proper speed, achieving smoother touchdowns, and ensuring precise alignment, the pilot can strive for even higher scores in future landings. Keep up the good work and continue to strive for excellence in every aspect of aircraft operations.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values