Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
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 · 33 stages, 32 scored
Events
Events
Events
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 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 2,398 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 170 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Overall, this aircraft landing analysis reveals several areas of improvement needed in various phases of the landing process.
In the Approach Phase, the aircraft had a poor descent path below the glideslope limit. This indicates that the aircraft was descending too steeply, which could have potentially led to a hard landing if not corrected. However, the heading alignment was great, which means that the aircraft was properly aligned with the runway. The speed was slightly below target, indicating that the aircraft may have been flying too slowly during the approach.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, the threshold height was slightly too low. This means that the aircraft was lower than the optimal height when approaching the runway threshold, which could have caused the aircraft to land prematurely. The landing flare was very poor, suggesting that the pilot did not properly reduce the rate of descent just before touchdown. Additionally, the bank angle stability during landing was poor, indicating that the aircraft may have been slightly tilted to one side during touchdown.
In the Touchdown Phase, the touchdown rate was fair and the speed was on target, indicating that the aircraft landed at an acceptable rate of descent and speed. The touchdown distance inside the touchdown zone was also good, showing that the aircraft landed within the designated area on the runway. However, the runway touchdown position was 9.7 meters from the centerline, which suggests that the aircraft may have landed slightly off-center.
Finally, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment was 18.2 meters from the centerline. This indicates that the aircraft did not track the centerline properly during the rollout phase, potentially leading to a less than ideal landing position on the runway.
Overall, this aircraft landing analysis highlights the need for improvement in areas such as descent path control, landing flare technique, bank angle stability, and runway alignment. By addressing these areas of concern, pilots can ensure safer and more precise landings in the future.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values