Events
Events
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 · 24 stages, 22 scored
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
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: 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 5,000 ft of the approach.
Plan view — the first 5,000 ft of the 8,421 ft runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 1,601 ft touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The 1.76 G arrival is the firm side of smooth.
The rest of the report
Overall, the aircraft landing score of 84.7% indicates a decent performance with room for improvement in certain areas.
The Approach Phase was strong with good glideslope alignment, which is a crucial aspect of a successful landing. This shows good control and precision during the descent towards the runway.
However, the Landing Phase had some issues that impacted the overall score. The threshold height being well above target indicates the need for better judgment and control during the final approach. The poor landing flare suggests that the pilot may need to work on timing and technique to achieve a smoother touchdown. Additionally, the poor landing heading and bank angle stability during landing show a lack of alignment and stability during the crucial moments before touchdown.
In the Touchdown Phase, while the touchdown rate was very hard, it is positive to note that the speed was on target. However, the touchdown point being 625 ft beyond the touchdown zone is a significant area for improvement, as it indicates a potential overshooting of the designated landing area. The runway touchdown position being 10 ft from the centerline also shows the need for better alignment during touchdown. The warning of landing with a 5 kn tailwind is a safety concern that should be addressed to ensure a safer landing in the future.
In the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment being 13 ft from the centerline is an issue that needs attention, as it indicates a lack of precision in maintaining alignment during the rollout phase.
Overall, while there were areas of improvement identified in the landing score analysis, it is important to acknowledge the strengths in the approach phase and the on-target speed during touchdown. With practice, focus, and attention to detail, there is potential for significant improvement in future landing performances. Keep up the hard work and dedication to fine-tuning your skills for smoother and safer landings.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values