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 · 20 stages, 18 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 2,138 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 2,138 m of the 3,986 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 973 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Airbus A380 started at EBBR Brussels Airport, with a 14-minute taxi from the parking to the runway, covering 3 nm. The departure was from runway 07L, with a takeoff distance of 1,836 m (60% of the runway) and a liftoff speed of 190 kn. The local weather at the time of departure was 19°C with a 1 kn wind at 270°.
The enroute climb began over Steenokkerzeel in Flanders, Belgium, climbing from 1,151 ft asl to 33,926 ft asl in 9 minutes, covering 40 nm. The enroute level cruise started 2 miles southeast of Engis in Wallonia, lasting 20 minutes and covering 161 nm.
The enroute descent started 2 miles northwest of Hopfingen in Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany, descending from 34,991 ft asl to 5,097 ft asl in 20 minutes, covering 111 nm. The subsequent enroute level cruise began 1 mile northeast of Hohenkammer in Bavaria, lasting 4 minutes and covering 6 nm.
The landing was on runway 08L at EDDM Munich Airport, with a runway length of 3,986 m. The aircraft was at 61 ft agl at the threshold, with a speed of 144 kn. The touchdown occurred 976 m from the threshold at a speed of 125 kn and a VSI of -694 ft/m. The total landing distance was 2,062 m, 52% of the runway. The local weather during landing was 15°C with a 1 kn wind at 270°.
After landing, the aircraft taxied to the parking in 7 minutes, covering less than 1 nm. The total flight distance was 330 nm, taking 85 minutes and consuming 13,031 kg of fuel.
Firstly, it is important to recognize the strengths of the landing approach, as highlighted by the good glideslope alignment during the Approach Phase. This indicates that the aircraft was on a proper descent path towards the runway, which is crucial for a safe and smooth landing. Maintaining proper alignment during this phase sets a solid foundation for the rest of the landing.
However, room for improvement is evident in the Landing Phase of the aircraft. While the threshold height was above target, indicating that the aircraft was at the correct altitude when approaching the runway, the landing flare was deemed very poor. The landing flare is a critical component of the landing process as it allows the aircraft to smoothly transition from descent to touchdown. Improving the landing flare would help to reduce the impact of the touchdown, resulting in a smoother landing overall.
In the Touchdown Phase, there are both positive and negative aspects to consider. While the touchdown rate was reported as very heavy, indicating that the aircraft landed with excessive force, the speed was on target. Additionally, the touchdown point being 562 meters beyond the touchdown zone suggests that the aircraft may have touched down later than desired, impacting the landing efficiency.
Furthermore, the runway touchdown position being 3.1 meters from the centerline during the Touchdown Phase raises concerns about the alignment of the aircraft with the runway. Proper alignment is crucial for a safe landing and deviations from the centerline could potentially lead to runway excursion or other safety hazards.
During the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment was reported as 3.2 meters from the centerline. This further emphasizes the importance of maintaining proper alignment throughout the landing process to ensure a safe and efficient touchdown.
In conclusion, while the aircraft achieved an overall landing score of 87.6%, there are clear areas for improvement in the landing approach, flare, touchdown, and rollout phases. By addressing these specific weaknesses, pilots and crew can work towards achieving a higher landing score and ensuring safer landings in the future. Your team should focus on practicing and refining these key elements of the landing process to enhance overall performance and safety.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values