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, 21 scored
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 1,719 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,719 m of the 2,495 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 641 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Overall, this aircraft landing displayed a mix of both good and poor elements throughout the different phases of the landing process.
During the Approach Phase, the aircraft had a poor descent path above the glideslope limit, indicating that the descent angle was too steep. However, the heading alignment and speed were on target, which is a positive aspect as it shows good control and coordination during the approach.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, it is noted that the threshold height was too high and the landing flare was very poor. The threshold height being too high could indicate that the aircraft was not properly aligned with the runway and may have come in too high, leading to a less than ideal approach for landing. The poor landing flare suggests that the aircraft's nose was not properly raised during the final moments of the landing, which could result in a harder touchdown and potentially a bounce.
In the Touchdown Phase, it is noted that the touchdown rate was good, indicating a smooth touchdown, but the speed was slightly above target. Additionally, the touchdown point was 216 meters beyond the touchdown zone, which may suggest that the pilot landed too far down the runway. The runway touchdown position was also 6.1 meters from the centerline, which could indicate a lack of proper alignment during touchdown.
Finally, in the Rollout Phase, it is mentioned that the runway alignment was 5.9 meters from the centerline, indicating that the aircraft may have had trouble staying centered on the runway during the rollout phase.
Overall, this aircraft landing showed a mix of both good and poor elements throughout the different phases of the landing process. Improvements in descent path, landing flare, alignment, and touchdown zone accuracy could help to make future landings smoother and more efficient.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values