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
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 1,781 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,781 m of the 3,660 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 648 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Airbus A321 started at Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport (KMSP) with a quick taxi to the runway, covering less than 1 nm in 4 minutes. The departure was from runway 30L, with a takeoff distance of 1,617 m and a liftoff speed of 161 kn. The local weather at departure was -0 °C with a 5 kn wind at 19 °, resulting in a 5 kn crosswind and a 1 kn headwind.
The enroute climb began over KMSP, climbing from 1,846 ft asl to 32,283 ft asl in 12 minutes, covering 101 nm. The level cruise portion of the flight started 5 miles west of Windom Municipal Airport (KMWM) and lasted 46 minutes, covering 716 nm. The descent phase started 4 miles south of Laketown in Utah, descending from 33,074 ft asl to 5,518 ft asl in 13 minutes, covering 70 nm.
The final approach was to runway 34L at Salt Lake City International Airport (KSLC) from the south, at 4 nm and 1,285 ft agl, with a good threshold height and speed of 143 kn. The touchdown occurred 230 m beyond the touchdown zone with a touchdown speed of 135 kn and a fair touchdown rate of -277 ft/m. The runway touchdown position was slightly misaligned by 6.4 m from the centerline, with the local weather at landing being 2 °C and no wind.
The total landing distance was 1,698 m, 46% of the runway length, with a very good runway rollout alignment. After landing, the taxi to the parking area took 4 minutes and covered less than 1 nm. The total flight distance was 896 nm, lasting 81 minutes and consuming 8,160 kg of fuel.
Let's break down the aircraft landing score of 94.9% by analyzing each phase of the landing process.
The Approach Phase of the landing was executed excellently with the glideslope alignment being spot on. Additionally, the threshold speed of 143 kn was well within the acceptable range. This indicates that the pilot managed to maintain the correct descent angle and airspeed during this critical phase of the landing.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, we see that the threshold height was good, ensuring a smooth transition from descent to touchdown. However, the landing flare was rated as fair, indicating room for improvement in terms of the pilot's ability to control the aircraft's pitch and descent rate just before touchdown.
As we look at the Touchdown Phase, we see that the touchdown rate was fair at -277 ft/m, suggesting a slightly firmer landing than optimal. However, the touchdown speed of 135 kn was within the acceptable range, indicating good control of airspeed during touchdown. The fact that the touchdown point was 230 m beyond the touchdown zone is a minor issue, but could potentially be improved upon in future landings.
Lastly, the assessment mentions that the runway touchdown position was slightly misaligned by 6.4 m from the centerline. While this deviation is relatively small, ensuring proper alignment during landing is crucial for safety and efficiency.
Overall, the aircraft landing score of 94.9% is quite impressive, indicating a high level of skill and proficiency on the part of the pilot. By addressing some minor areas for improvement, such as refining the landing flare and ensuring precise alignment with the runway centerline, the pilot can further enhance their landing performance. Keep up the good work and continue striving for excellence in each phase of the landing process.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values