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 · 18 stages, 16 scored
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.
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: speed above the reference speed.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 1,888 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,888 m of the 2,649 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 651 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with a taxiing period from the parking area to the runway, which took 10 minutes and covered a distance of 4 nautical miles. The aircraft, an Airbus A320, then departed from runway 18L at Tulsa International Airport (KTUL). The takeoff distance was 1,961 meters, which accounted for 64% of the runway length. The liftoff speed was 152 knots.
As the aircraft climbed out of Tulsa, it began its enroute climb, starting 1 mile south of the airport. The climb took 20 minutes and covered a distance of 146 nautical miles, with the aircraft ascending from 1,673 feet above sea level to 37,128 feet above sea level, a total increase of 35,455 feet. The enroute climb phase was followed by a level cruise, which started 7 miles west of Summit, Arkansas, and lasted for 47 minutes. During this phase, the aircraft covered a distance of 428 nautical miles.
The enroute descent phase began 2 miles northeast of Louisville, Tennessee, and took 27 minutes to complete. The aircraft descended from 36,677 feet above sea level to 2,053 feet above sea level, a total decrease of 34,624 feet. The descent covered a distance of 157 nautical miles. The final approach to runway 36R at Charlotte Douglas International Airport (KCLT) was made from the south, with the aircraft heading 356.0 degrees at 4 nautical miles and 1,306 feet above ground level.
The landing on runway 36R was successful, with the touchdown point being 238 meters beyond the touchdown zone. The touchdown speed was a little fast at 127 knots, but the touchdown rate was fair at -238 feet per minute. The runway touchdown alignment was very good. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were a temperature of 16 degrees Celsius, with a wind speed of 5 knots at 230 degrees. The crosswind was 4 knots, and the tailwind was 3 knots.
The total landing distance was 1,810 meters, which accounted for 68% of the runway length. The runway rollout alignment was slightly misaligned by 14.1 meters from the centerline. The taxiing period from the runway to the parking area took 2 minutes and covered a distance of less than 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 741 nautical miles, and the flight duration was 108 minutes. The aircraft used a total of 3,939 kilograms of fuel during the flight.
The Airbus A320 successfully landed on runway 36R at Charlotte Douglas International Airport (KCLT) with a score of 89.5%. The aircraft was approaching the runway from the south, heading 356.0° at a distance of 4 nautical miles and an altitude of 1,306 feet above ground level (agl). The final approach was conducted with a good threshold speed of 135 knots, which is within the acceptable range for a safe landing.
However, there were a few areas for improvement during the landing. The threshold height at 62 feet agl was above the target, indicating that the aircraft may have been slightly high on its approach. Additionally, the touchdown speed of 127 knots was a little fast, which could have resulted in a longer landing distance. The touchdown rate of -238 feet per minute (fpm) was fair, but not ideal.
The landing distance of 1,810 meters was 68% of the runway length, which is a relatively short distance considering the aircraft's weight and speed. This suggests that the pilot was able to control the aircraft's descent and touchdown effectively. The runway touchdown alignment was very good, indicating that the aircraft was aligned with the runway centerline at touchdown.
The local weather conditions at the time of the landing were mild, with a temperature of 16°C and a light wind of 5 knots from 230°. The crosswind component was 4 knots, and the tailwind component was 3 knots, which is relatively minimal and should not have had a significant impact on the landing.
During the rollout, the aircraft was slightly misaligned with the runway centerline by 14.1 meters. This is a relatively minor deviation and may not have had a significant impact on the safety of the landing. Overall, the landing was successful, but there were a few areas for improvement that the pilot could work on to achieve a higher score.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values