Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Configure earlier
Preparing for a stable approach will give you time to decide on whether to attempt the landing or going around. Too much altitude with a high sink rate will result in carrying too much speed onto the runway. Configuring flaps and the gear late also won't help the speed decay.
Read more in The Stabilised ApproachStart to finish · 18 stages, 16 scored
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.
Two stabilised approach gates, each with seven checks, where the approach path is 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway. They are the approach's score: the checks passed out of the checks that ran.
At the 1,000 ft gate: gear still up, no landing flap set, centreline 8.9° off, against a 1° limit, wings 45° of bank, against a 10° limit and speed 204 kt FAST on the reference speed of 150 kt.
At the 500 ft gate: no landing flap set, sink rate 1,904 fpm, more than the glideslope needed, centreline 2.5° off, against a 1° limit, wings 15° of bank, against a 10° limit and speed 49 kt FAST on the reference speed of 150 kt.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 2,923 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 80 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone.
The rest of the report
Departing from Denver International Airport, the Experimental Darkstar initiated its departure roll on runway 08, covering 30% of the 3,505-meter runway in a takeoff distance of 1,093 meters. The aircraft lifted off at a speed of 215 knots, taking advantage of the 15-knot tailwind. As it departed the airport, the local weather conditions were characterized by a temperature of 21 degrees Celsius and a wind speed of 15 knots from a direction of 270 degrees.
As the aircraft entered the enroute phase, it began a series of climbs and descents, navigating through various altitudes and airspaces. The first notable climb occurred 2 miles southwest of the Greggs Nr 1 Airport Bennett, where the aircraft ascended from 6,325 feet to 17,424 feet in 5 minutes, covering a distance of 87 nautical miles. The aircraft then underwent a series of climbs and descents, including a notable ascent from 7,741 feet to 237,938 feet in 13 minutes, covering 675 nautical miles. The aircraft's level cruise phase lasted for 2 minutes, covering 14 nautical miles, before it began its descent towards its destination.
The Experimental Darkstar finally began its final approach to runway 30 at John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport, descending from 4,290 feet to 1,273 feet in 2 minutes, covering 9 nautical miles. The aircraft then climbed to 1,800 feet before initiating its final approach. The landing was characterized by a touchdown speed of 218 knots, which was excessively fast, and a touchdown rate of -2,048 feet per minute, which was very heavy. The aircraft touched down 16.1 meters off the centerline, and the runway rollout alignment was slightly misaligned by 15.0 meters from the centerline. The total landing distance was 634 meters, which was 26% of the 2,435-meter runway. The total flight distance was 1,223 nautical miles, taking 38 minutes, and the aircraft used 13,012 kilograms of fuel.
The aircraft touched down on runway 30 at CYHM John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport, a 2,435-meter-long runway, after a final approach from the south east. The approach quality was satisfactory, with a good threshold height achieved. However, the threshold speed was excessively high at 224 knots, indicating a potential issue with the aircraft's approach configuration or pilot technique.
Upon touchdown, the aircraft exhibited a heavy touchdown rate of -2,048 feet per minute, which is significantly higher than the recommended rate. The touchdown speed of 218 knots was also excessively fast, suggesting that the pilot may have been unable to arrest the aircraft's descent in a timely manner. The touchdown distance of 85 meters was good, but the runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 16.1 meters from the centreline, which may have contributed to the heavy touchdown rate and excessive speed.
The aircraft's rollout was slightly misaligned by 15.0 meters from the centreline, indicating a potential issue with the pilot's ability to maintain directional control during the rollout phase. The total landing distance of 634 meters was 26% of the runway length, which is within the acceptable range. Overall, the landing performance was satisfactory, but there were several areas for improvement, resulting in a score of 70.0%.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values