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
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 1,542 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,542 m of the 2,483 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 772 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Aircraft landing is a critical phase of flight that demands precision and accuracy to ensure the safety of passengers and crew. In this specific scenario, the landing score of 80.7% indicates that there were several areas that could be improved upon to enhance the overall landing performance.
During the Approach Phase, it is noted that the descent path was poor, exceeding the glideslope limit, and the heading alignment was also subpar. These factors can contribute to a less smooth and controlled landing, as the aircraft may not be properly lined up with the runway and at the correct altitude for a safe touchdown.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, it is concerning that the threshold height was well above target, indicating that the aircraft was not at the desired altitude upon reaching the runway threshold. Additionally, the very poor landing flare and bank angle stability during landing suggest that the aircraft may have made a sudden, harsh touchdown rather than a gradual and controlled one. These issues can result in a harder landing and potentially lead to discomfort for passengers.
In the Touchdown Phase, while the touchdown rate was excellent and the speed was on target, it is worrisome that the touchdown point was significantly beyond the touchdown zone. This can be indicative of a longer landing distance than anticipated, potentially requiring more runway to come to a complete stop. Additionally, the runway touchdown position being off-center by 4.8 meters and the runway alignment during the Rollout Phase being 4.6 meters from the centerline further highlight the need for improved precision during the landing phase.
Overall, while there are aspects of the landing performance that are commendable, such as the touchdown rate and speed control, there are clear areas where improvement is needed to enhance the overall safety and efficiency of the landing process. By addressing issues such as descent path control, heading alignment, threshold height, landing flare, touchdown point accuracy, and runway alignment, pilots can strive to achieve a smoother, more controlled landing that prioritizes passenger comfort and safety. It is important to approach these areas with a focus on continuous improvement and attention to detail to elevate overall landing performance and ensure optimal outcomes in future flights.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values