Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
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 · 27 stages, 25 scored
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
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.
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 5,000 ft of the approach.
Plan view — the first 5,000 ft of the 9,969 ft runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 2,582 ft past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Overall, the aircraft landing score of 89.0% is a good result, but there are some areas that could use improvement to achieve a higher score in the future.
In the Approach Phase, it is commendable that the glideslope alignment was good and the speed was only slightly above target. This shows that the pilot had a good understanding of the approach procedures and was able to maintain a stable descent towards the runway. Moving forward, focusing on maintaining the correct approach speed will further enhance this phase of the landing.
During the Landing Phase, there were a few areas that were identified as needing improvement. The fact that the threshold height was above target indicates that the approach angle to the runway may have been slightly too high. Additionally, the poor landing flare and bank angle stability during landing suggest that more practice and training in these areas would be beneficial to improve the overall landing technique.
In the Touchdown Phase, there were both positive and negative aspects. While the touchdown rate was fair and the speed was on target, the fact that the touchdown point was significantly beyond the touchdown zone is a cause for concern. Additionally, the runway touchdown position being 4.3 meters from the centerline indicates that there was some deviation from the desired landing path. By focusing on precision and alignment during the touchdown phase, future landings can be more accurate and consistent.
Finally, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment being 4.3 meters from the centerline may have been a result of the previous deviations in the touchdown phase. By working on maintaining a straight path during the rollout, the overall landing score can be further improved.
In conclusion, while the 89.0% landing score is a good result, there are areas such as landing flare, touchdown precision, and runway alignment that can be worked on to achieve even better performance in future landings. With dedication and practice, the pilot can continue to refine their skills and strive for even higher scores in the future. Keep up the good work and continue to strive for excellence in every aspect of aircraft landings.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values