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 · 22 stages, 20 scored
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 152 m above the runway. The 305 m 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 2,495 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 119 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in question was operated by a Boeing 787-10 aircraft. The pre-flight taxiing process from the parking area to the runway took approximately 8 minutes and covered a distance of 2 nautical miles. The aircraft then departed from runway 01L at ENGM Oslo Airport, Gardermoen, with a takeoff distance of 1,685 meters, which accounted for 47% of the runway length. The liftoff speed was recorded at 156 knots.
The local weather conditions at the time of departure were characterized by a temperature of -4°C, with a wind speed of 0 knots at 304 degrees. The aircraft experienced no crosswind or headwind during takeoff. Following a successful departure, the enroute climb began overhead Gardermoen, with the aircraft ascending from an altitude of 517 meters above sea level to 10,529 meters above sea level, an increase of 10,012.1 meters, in 14 minutes and covering a distance of 80 nautical miles.
The enroute level cruise phase started 6 miles east of Stavern, Norway, and lasted for 48 minutes, covering a distance of 414 nautical miles. The aircraft then began its descent 56 miles west of De Koog, The Netherlands, and descended from 10,728 meters above sea level to 7,816 meters above sea level, a decrease of 2,912.2 meters, in 7 minutes and covering a distance of 54 nautical miles. The enroute level cruise phase resumed 28 miles east of Lowestoft, England, and lasted for 2 minutes, covering a distance of 15 nautical miles.
The aircraft then began its descent 25 miles east of Southwold, England, and descended from 7,814 meters above sea level to 841 meters above sea level, a decrease of 6,973.1 meters, in 25 minutes and covering a distance of 118 nautical miles. The enroute level cruise phase resumed 1 mile southwest of Handcross, England, and lasted for 4 minutes, covering a distance of 11 nautical miles. The aircraft then began its descent overhead Alfold Crossways, England, and descended from 840 meters above sea level to 448 meters above sea level, a decrease of 391.8 meters, in 3 minutes and covering a distance of 7 nautical miles.
The final approach to runway 08R at EGKK London Gatwick Airport was made from the west, with the aircraft heading at 78.0 degrees at an altitude of 385.0 meters above ground level and 4 nautical miles from the runway. The landing was executed on runway 08R, which had a length of 2,495 meters. The threshold height was good, but the threshold speed was slightly below the target at 141 knots. The touchdown distance was good at 116 meters, and the touchdown speed was also good at 140 knots. However, the touchdown rate was very heavy at -3.9 meters per second.
The runway touchdown position was misaligned by 8.6 meters from the centerline, and the runway rollout alignment was slightly misaligned by 9.9 meters from the centerline. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were characterized by a temperature of 4°C, with a wind speed of 6 knots at 160 degrees. The aircraft experienced a crosswind of 6 knots and a headwind of 1 knot during landing.
The total landing distance was 1,114 meters, which accounted for 45% of the runway length. The taxiing process from the runway to the parking area took approximately 5 minutes and covered a distance of less than 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 708 nautical miles, and the flight duration was 117 minutes. The aircraft used a total of 9,309 kilograms of fuel
The Boeing 787-10 aircraft successfully landed at London Gatwick Airport, achieving a score of 90.6%. The final approach to runway 08R was initiated from the west, with the aircraft heading 78.0° at an altitude of 385.0 meters above ground level (agl) and a distance of 4 nautical miles from the runway.
Upon landing, the aircraft touched down on the runway with a speed of 140 knots, which was within the acceptable range. The touchdown distance of 116 meters was also considered good. However, the touchdown rate was quite heavy, at -3.9 meters per second, indicating a relatively abrupt touchdown.
The runway touchdown position was slightly misaligned from the centerline, by 8.6 meters. This could be attributed to the aircraft's alignment during the final approach or the pilot's decision to touch down slightly off-center. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were characterized by a temperature of 4°C and a wind speed of 6 knots from a direction of 160°. The crosswind component was 6 knots, while the headwind component was 1 knot.
The total landing distance of 1,114 meters was 45% of the runway length, which is a relatively short distance considering the aircraft's size and weight. However, the runway rollout alignment was also slightly misaligned from the centerline, by 9.9 meters. This could be a concern for the aircraft's stability and control during the rollout phase.
Overall, the landing was considered successful, with the aircraft achieving a good touchdown speed and distance. However, the heavy touchdown rate and slight misalignment of the touchdown and rollout positions could be areas for improvement in future landings.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values