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 · 26 stages, 25 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.
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 2,653 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 666 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
First of all, it's important to recognize that landing an aircraft is a complex and challenging task, and every landing presents a learning opportunity for improvement. In this case, although there were some areas for improvement in each phase of the landing, there were also some positive aspects to build upon.
In the Approach Phase, it's evident that the descent path was above the glideslope limit. This could have been due to a number of factors, such as wind conditions or misjudgment of altitude. However, it's encouraging to see that the heading alignment was excellent and speed was slightly below the target. This indicates that the pilot had good control over the aircraft's direction and was mindful of their approach speed.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, it's noted that the threshold height was too high and there was a very poor landing flare. This may have contributed to a rough touchdown and potentially increased stress on the landing gear. However, it's positive to see that the touchdown rate was fair and the speed was on target. This suggests that the pilot had a good sense of the aircraft's speed and rate of descent.
In the Touchdown Phase, the touchdown point being 245 m beyond the touchdown zone and the runway touchdown position being 7.7 m from the centerline indicates that there was a misjudgment in landing position. However, the fact that the speed was on target and the touchdown rate was fair is a good indication that the pilot was able to control the aircraft effectively during this phase.
Finally, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment being 7.8 m from the centerline suggests that there was some drift during the landing. This may have been caused by crosswinds or a lack of alignment during touchdown. It's important to practice maintaining runway alignment to ensure safe and smooth landings.
Overall, while there were areas for improvement in each phase of the landing, it's important to remember that every landing is a learning experience. By recognizing and addressing these areas of improvement, the pilot can continue to enhance their skills and ensure safe and smooth landings in the future. With practice and continued attention to detail, they can achieve consistent and precise landings. Keep up the good work and keep striving for excellence in every flight!
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values