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 · 25 stages, 23 scored
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
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 and off the runway's 3° glideslope.
At the 500 ft gate: sink rate above what the glideslope needed and off the runway's 3° glideslope.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 1,845 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,845 m of the 3,056 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 1,064 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with a taxiing period from the parking to the runway, which took 7 minutes and covered a distance of 3 nautical miles. The aircraft, a Boeing 737-800, then departed from runway 22R at John F. Kennedy International Airport (KJFK). The takeoff distance was 1,842 meters, which was 70% of the runway length. The liftoff speed was 152 knots.
The local weather conditions at the time of departure were a temperature of 17°C, with a wind speed of 8 knots at 320°. The crosswind was 8 knots, and the tailwind was 3 knots. The aircraft began its enroute climb 1 mile north of Arverne, New York, and climbed from 1,012 feet above sea level to 9,518 feet above sea level, an increase of 8,507 feet in 3 minutes, covering a distance of 13 nautical miles.
The enroute level cruise started 3 miles southeast of the Long Island Static Carrier - CVN76, and lasted 2 minutes, covering a distance of 9 nautical miles. The aircraft then began another enroute climb, this time from 10,138 feet above sea level to 35,552 feet above sea level, an increase of 25,414 feet in 16 minutes, covering a distance of 95 nautical miles.
The enroute level cruise started 12 miles southeast of Stone Harbor, New Jersey, and lasted 25 minutes, covering a distance of 173 nautical miles. The aircraft then began its enroute descent, starting overhead Brandywyne Farms Airport in Holland, Virginia. The descent was from 35,261 feet above sea level to 34,555 feet above sea level, a decrease of 705 feet in 2 minutes, covering a distance of 11 nautical miles.
The aircraft then began another enroute climb, this time from 33,808 feet above sea level to 36,171 feet above sea level, an increase of 2,362 feet in 5 minutes, covering a distance of 30 nautical miles. The enroute level cruise started 7 miles southwest of Emporia, Virginia, and lasted 18 minutes, covering a distance of 128 nautical miles.
The aircraft then began its enroute descent, starting 3 miles west of Dublin, North Carolina. The descent was from 36,586 feet above sea level to 9,880 feet above sea level, a decrease of 26,706 feet in 17 minutes, covering a distance of 86 nautical miles. The enroute level cruise started 1 mile southeast of Unionville, North Carolina, and lasted 2 minutes, covering a distance of 7 nautical miles.
The aircraft then began its final descent, starting 1 mile northwest of Goose Creek Airport in Indian Trail, North Carolina. The descent was from 9,884 feet above sea level to 2,248 feet above sea level, a decrease of 7,636 feet in 9 minutes, covering a distance of 18 nautical miles.
The final approach to runway 18C at Charlotte Douglas International Airport (KCLT) was from the north, heading 181.0° at 2 nautical miles and 1,483 feet above ground level. The landing on runway 18C was at a speed of 174 knots, which was too high, and the touchdown point was 642 meters beyond the touchdown zone. The touchdown speed was 152 knots, which was fast, and the touchdown rate was very heavy at -710 feet per minute.
The runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 25.3 meters from the centerline, and the runway rollout alignment was also significantly misaligned by 36.5 meters from the centerline. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were a temperature of
The Boeing 737-800 aircraft experienced a challenging landing at Charlotte Douglas International Airport (KCLT) on runway 18C. The final approach was initiated from the north, heading 181.0° at 2 nautical miles and 1,483 feet above ground level (agl). However, the aircraft failed to meet the target threshold height, coming in at 88 feet agl, which was significantly above the desired level.
Upon touchdown, the aircraft's speed was also too high at 174 knots, exceeding the recommended threshold speed. The touchdown point was located 642 meters beyond the designated touchdown zone, indicating a significant deviation from the intended landing spot. Furthermore, the touchdown speed of 152 knots was faster than recommended, resulting in a very heavy touchdown rate of -710 feet per minute (fpm).
The landing was also marred by a misaligned runway touchdown position, with the aircraft deviating by 25.3 meters from the centerline. This misalignment was further exacerbated during the rollout phase, where the aircraft remained significantly off-centerline by 36.5 meters. The total landing distance of 1,757 meters was 58% of the available runway length, indicating a relatively short landing.
The local weather conditions at the time of the landing were characterized by a temperature of 18°C and a wind speed of 9 knots from a direction of 70°. The crosswind component was 9 knots, while the tailwind component was a relatively minor 3 knots. These conditions may have contributed to the challenges faced by the pilot during the landing, but a more precise analysis would be required to determine the exact impact of the weather on the landing performance.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values