Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Shorten the long landing
Ground effect becomes significant below about one wingspan of height. A Cessna 172, with a 36 ft span, enters ground effect at flare height - the float it feels in the hold-off is ground effect arriving on cue. An A320, with a span around 117 ft, has been in ground effect since before the threshold and there is no sudden cushion to feel, only a gradual reduction in induced drag that lengthens any float you allow.
Read more in Flare TimingStart to finish · 21 stages, 19 scored
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 1,910 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,910 m of the 3,660 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 934 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight on the Airbus A321 began with a smooth taxi from the parking area to the runway at KSAN San Diego International Airport. The taxiing took approximately 9 minutes to cover the 1 nautical mile distance. The departure roll on runway 27 was successful, with the aircraft utilizing 87% of the runway distance of 1,815 meters before liftoff at a speed of 178 knots. The weather conditions at the time of departure indicated a temperature of 20°C, with a 4-knot wind coming from 300°, resulting in a 1-knot crosswind and a 4-knot headwind.
Once airborne, the enroute climb began 1 mile west of the airport, with the aircraft ascending from 1,054 feet above sea level to 35,894 feet above sea level. This climb covered a distance of 138 nautical miles in 26 minutes. Following the climb, the aircraft entered a level cruise phase starting 8 miles south of CL18 Danby Airstrip in California. The cruise lasted for 41 minutes, covering a distance of 294 nautical miles.
As the flight progressed, the enroute descent commenced 14 miles west of Kanosh in Utah. The aircraft descended from 35,819 feet above sea level to 11,342 feet above sea level, covering a distance of 109 nautical miles in 16 minutes. After a brief level cruise phase that covered 13 nautical miles in 2 minutes, the descent for landing began 7 miles northwest of KSLC Salt Lake City International Airport. The aircraft descended from 10,660 feet above sea level to 6,011 feet above sea level in 5 minutes, covering 5 nautical miles.
The landing on runway 16R at KSLC Salt Lake City International Airport was executed smoothly, with the aircraft touching down at a speed of 137 knots, 932 meters from the threshold. The landing speed of 142 knots and a vertical speed indicator reading of -217 ft/min were observed. The total landing distance was 1,832 meters, utilizing 50% of the runway length. The local weather conditions at the time indicated a temperature of 28°C, with no wind present.
After landing, the aircraft taxied from the runway to the parking area in 8 minutes, covering less than 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance for the journey was 570 nautical miles, which took a total of 132 minutes to complete. The flight consumed 5,446 kilograms of fuel during the journey.
Overall, the aircraft landing score of 87.9% indicates a decent landing performance with room for improvement in certain areas.
Starting with the Approach Phase, it is commendable that the glideslope alignment was excellent. This suggests that the aircraft was properly guided towards the runway at the correct angle, which is crucial for a safe landing.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, there were some areas of concern. The fact that the threshold height was slightly above target is something that should be looked into, as it can impact the landing quality. Additionally, the very poor landing flare indicates that there was not enough height and speed reduction in the final moments before touchdown. This could lead to a harder landing and potentially cause damage to the aircraft.
In the Touchdown Phase, it is positive that the touchdown rate was fair and the speed was on target. However, the touchdown point being 521m beyond the touchdown zone is a significant issue that needs to be addressed, as it could affect the safety of the landing. Furthermore, the runway touchdown position being 3.1m off the centerline indicates a lack of alignment, which can be improved through better coordination and precision during the landing.
Lastly, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment being 6.7m off the centerline is another aspect that needs attention, as it shows a lack of accuracy in maintaining the aircraft's position on the runway after touchdown.
In conclusion, while the overall landing score of 87.9% is decent, there are several areas identified for improvement. By focusing on issues such as threshold height, landing flare, touchdown point, runway alignment, and centerline positioning, the landing performance can be further enhanced to ensure safer and more precise landings in the future. Keep up the good work and continue to strive for excellence in every phase of the landing process.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values