Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
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 · 26 stages, 24 scored
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 7,509 ft runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 2,129 ft past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Firstly, let me commend you on successfully landing the aircraft with a 65.6% score despite facing several challenges during the different phases of the landing process. It's clear that there were areas for improvement, but your ability to handle a 16 knot crosswind during touchdown is impressive.
During the Approach Phase, it's noted that the descent path was above the glideslope limit and there was poor heading alignment. This could have affected the overall stability of the approach, making it more challenging to transition into the Landing Phase smoothly.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, there were several issues that impacted the score. The threshold height was excessively over the target, the landing flare was very poor, and there were issues with landing heading and bank angle stability. These factors likely contributed to a less than ideal touchdown.
In the Touchdown Phase, it's great to see that the touchdown rate was smooth, despite the speed being slightly above target. However, there is room for improvement as the touchdown point was 1030 ft beyond the touchdown zone and the runway touchdown position was 116 ft from the centerline.
Finally, during the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment was 114 ft from the centerline, indicating some difficulties in maintaining a straight path after touchdown.
In conclusion, while there were certainly areas for improvement in each phase of the landing process, your ability to handle a challenging crosswind during touchdown is commendable. I would encourage you to focus on improving your descent path, heading alignment, flare technique, and overall landing stability to achieve a higher score in future landings. Keep up the hard work and dedication to mastering these skills, and I have no doubt that you will see improvements in your overall performance. Great job!
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values