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 · 10 stages, 10 scored
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 1,582 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 497 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Piper PA-24-250 Comanche began with a departure roll on runway 09 at LPPI Pico Airport. The takeoff distance was 241 meters, which constituted 15% of the total runway length. The liftoff speed was 65 knots. The local weather at the time of departure indicated a temperature of 21°C, with a wind speed of 17 knots coming from 135°, resulting in a crosswind of 14 knots and a headwind of 10 knots.
The enroute climb phase of the flight started 1 mile northwest of Santa Luzia in the Azores, Portugal. The aircraft climbed from 1,069 feet above sea level to 2,062 feet above sea level, covering an increase of 993 feet in altitude in 2 minutes and spanning a distance of 4 nautical miles.
Subsequently, the enroute descent commenced 3 miles northwest of LPPI Pico Airport on Pico Island. The descent took the aircraft from 2,067 feet above sea level to 822 feet above sea level, resulting in a decrease of 1,245 feet in altitude over 2 minutes and covering a distance of 3 nautical miles.
The landing was executed on runway 09 at LPPI Pico Airport, which had a length of 1,582 meters. The height at the threshold of the runway was 65 feet above ground level, with the speed at the threshold recorded at 72 knots. The touchdown occurred 493 meters from the threshold, with a touchdown speed of 56 knots and a vertical speed indicator reading of -237 feet per minute. The local weather conditions at the time of landing showed a temperature of 21°C, with a wind speed of 15 knots coming from 136°, resulting in a crosswind of 12 knots and a headwind of 9 knots.
Overall, the total flight distance covered was 10 nautical miles, with a duration of 17 minutes, during which 4 kilograms of fuel were consumed.
First and foremost, kudos on successfully landing the aircraft despite facing some challenges during the landing process. Your ability to adapt and make adjustments in real-time is commendable.
Let's break down the analysis of the aircraft landing score of 78.9%:
During the Approach Phase, you displayed excellent glideslope alignment, indicating that you were able to maintain the correct vertical descent path towards the runway. However, there was a lack of alignment in terms of heading, which suggests that there may have been some difficulties in maintaining the correct lateral path towards the runway. This is an area that can be improved by focusing on maintaining proper alignment throughout the approach phase.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, there were some areas of concern that affected the overall score. The threshold height being above the target suggests that the descent towards the runway was not as precise as it could have been. Additionally, the landing flare was deemed very poor, indicating that there may have been a lack of proper altitude and speed control during the final moments before touchdown. Improving the landing flare technique can lead to smoother and more controlled landings.
Furthermore, the poor landing heading and bank angle stability during landing highlight the importance of maintaining proper alignment and control of the aircraft during the critical phase of landing. These factors can greatly impact the overall smoothness and safety of the landing, and focusing on improving these areas can lead to better outcomes in future landings.
In the Touchdown Phase, while the touchdown rate was deemed fair and the speed was slightly above target, there were some noticeable areas where improvements can be made. The touchdown point being 54 meters beyond the touchdown zone and the runway touchdown position being 14.8 meters from the centerline indicate that there may have been some challenges in accurately touching down at the desired location. Working on precision in touchdown points and alignment with the centerline can lead to more consistent landings in the future.
Lastly, despite facing a 12 knots crosswind during the landing, you managed to successfully land the aircraft. This demonstrates your ability to handle challenging conditions and make decisions in real-time to safely bring the aircraft to the ground.
Overall, while there were some areas that could be improved upon, your ability to successfully land the aircraft under challenging conditions shows your potential for growth and improvement. By focusing on areas such as alignment, flare technique, and touchdown precision, you can work towards achieving even higher scores in future landings. Keep up the great work and continue striving for excellence in your aircraft landings.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values