Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Departure
Make small rudder corrections against a fixed point at the far end of the runway to hold the centreline during the roll.
What happened: The aircraft drifted 16 m off the runway centreline during the ground roll, and wing drift like that usually keeps reappearing as bank in the climb, with 0.8° of bank in the first climb segment and 9.4° still showing in the second.
Watch for: Heading indicator: steady on the runway centreline during the roll, then wings level through the climb.
Arrival
Make one smooth continuous pitch input through the flare rather than chasing the runway with the elevator.
What happened: The flare was pumped, with pitch reversing direction several times on the way down instead of one smooth input.
Watch for: Watch the pitch attitude trend through the flare, aiming for a single steady rise through 6.7° with no reversals.
See Arrival Landing
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 · 12 stages, 11 scored
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.
Two stabilised approach gates, each with seven checks, where the approach path is 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway.
At the 1,000 ft gate: off the centreline and speed above the reference speed.
At the 500 ft gate: speed above the reference speed.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 1,728 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,728 m of the 2,254 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 859 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with a departure roll from runway 25 at MSLP Monseñor Óscar Arnulfo Romero International Airport. The aircraft, an Airbus A320, took off after covering 42% of the runway, with a takeoff distance of 1,329 meters. The liftoff speed was 144 knots, and the local weather conditions at the time were characterized by a temperature of 17 degrees Celsius and a wind speed of 2 knots from a direction of 270 degrees.
As the aircraft climbed away from the airport, it began its enroute climb 1 mile west of the airport, in the vicinity of San Salvador. The climb started from an altitude of 488 feet above sea level and reached a height of 3,025 feet above sea level, an increase of 2,537 feet in just 3 minutes. During this climb, the aircraft covered a distance of 13 nautical miles.
The final approach to runway 33 at MSSS Ilopango International Airport was made from the southeast, with the aircraft heading 332.0 degrees at an altitude of 997 feet above ground level and a distance of 3 nautical miles from the runway. The landing on runway 33 was notable for several factors, including a threshold height that was slightly above the target, a threshold speed that was too high at 164 knots, and a touchdown speed of 144 knots, which was considered fast.
The touchdown point was 449 meters beyond the touchdown zone, and the touchdown rate was hard at -482 feet per minute. Additionally, the runway touchdown position was misaligned by 7.9 meters from the centerline. The total landing distance was 1,653 meters, which accounted for 73% of the runway. The runway rollout alignment was also slightly misaligned by 9.3 meters from the centerline.
After landing, the aircraft taxied to the parking area from the runway, a process that took 3 minutes and covered a distance of 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 21 nautical miles, and the flight duration was 11 minutes. The aircraft used a total of 311 kilograms of fuel during the flight.
The Airbus A320 aircraft successfully landed at MSSS Ilopango International Airport, but the landing was not without its issues. The final approach to runway 33 was initiated from the southeast, heading 332.0° at 3 nautical miles and 997 feet above ground level (agl). The aircraft touched down on the runway, but the touchdown point was 449 meters beyond the designated touchdown zone, indicating a slight deviation from the intended landing spot.
The touchdown speed of 144 knots was higher than the target speed, resulting in a hard touchdown rate of -482 feet per minute (fpm). This excessive speed may have contributed to the hard touchdown, which can be detrimental to the aircraft's landing gear and overall structural integrity. Furthermore, the runway touchdown position was misaligned by 7.9 meters from the centerline, which may have been caused by a combination of factors, including wind and pilot error.
The local weather conditions at the time of landing were relatively calm, with a temperature of 17°C and a wind speed of 2 knots at 270°. The crosswind component was minimal at 2 knots, while the headwind component was 1 knot. These conditions should have allowed for a relatively smooth landing, but the aircraft's performance suggests that there may have been some issues with the approach and touchdown.
The total landing distance of 1,653 meters was 73% of the available runway length, which is a relatively high percentage. This may indicate that the aircraft was not fully stopped before the end of the runway, or that the pilot may have been experiencing some difficulty with the landing. The runway rollout alignment was also slightly misaligned by 9.3 meters from the centerline, which may have been caused by the same factors that contributed to the initial touchdown misalignment.
Overall, while the Airbus A320 successfully landed at MSSS Ilopango International Airport, the landing was not without its issues. The excessive touchdown speed, hard touchdown rate, and misaligned touchdown and rollout positions all suggest that there may have been some problems with the approach and landing. Further analysis and review of the flight data may be necessary to identify the root causes of these issues and to develop strategies for improving the aircraft's landing performance.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values