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 · 12 stages, 11 scored
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 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 2,131 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 450 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Piper PA-24-250 Comanche began with a departure roll on runway 31R at KJFK John F Kennedy International Airport. The takeoff distance was 203 meters, which equated to 8% of the total runway length. The liftoff speed was 76 knots. The local weather at the time of departure was 18°C, with a wind speed of 13 knots coming from 190°, resulting in a crosswind of 12 knots and a tailwind of 5 knots.
The enroute climb started as the aircraft flew overhead KJFK John F Kennedy International Airport in New York. The aircraft climbed from 739 feet above sea level to 2,914 feet above sea level, an increase of 2,175 feet, accomplished in 3 minutes and covering a distance of 6 nautical miles.
Subsequently, the enroute descent began overhead Maspeth in New York, with the aircraft descending from 2,936 feet above sea level to 1,485 feet above sea level, a decrease of 1,451 feet, accomplished in 2 minutes and covering a distance of 5 nautical miles.
The landing took place on runway 31 at KLGA LaGuardia Airport, which has a runway length of 2,131 meters. The height at the threshold was 81 feet above ground level, and the speed at the threshold was 83 knots. The touchdown occurred 443 meters from the threshold, with a touchdown speed of 69 knots and a vertical speed indicator showing a descent rate of -215 feet per minute. The local weather at the time of landing was 22°C, with a wind speed of 9 knots coming from 160°, resulting in a crosswind of 5 knots and a tailwind of 7 knots.
The total landing distance was 1,109 meters, which equated to 52% of the total runway length at KLGA LaGuardia Airport. The total flight distance covered was 15 nautical miles, with a total flight time of 17 minutes and fuel consumption of 6 kilograms.
Overall, your aircraft landing score of 80.7% indicates good performance but with room for improvement in several key areas.
During the Approach Phase, it was noted that the descent path was above the glideslope limit and the speed was well above target. This suggests that adjustments should be made to ensure a smoother descent and to adhere more closely to the designated speed for a safer approach.
In the Landing Phase, there were a few significant issues identified. The threshold height was significantly above the target, indicating a need for better alignment control. Additionally, the landing flare was described as very poor, which could lead to a harder landing and potential damage to the aircraft.
Moving on to the Touchdown Phase, while the touchdown rate was considered fair, it was noted that the speed was too high. This is a critical aspect that should be addressed promptly to avoid excessive wear on the aircraft. Furthermore, landing 160m beyond the touchdown zone and 2.6m off the runway centreline is concerning and could lead to safety hazards in future landings.
An important note from the evaluation is the fact that a 7 knot tailwind was present during the landing. It is crucial to always land with a headwind whenever possible to ensure optimal safety and control during touchdown.
Lastly, in the Rollout Phase, it was recorded that the runway alignment was 8.3m off the centreline. Proper alignment is essential for a safe and smooth landing, and adjustments should be made to correct this deviation in future landings.
In conclusion, while your aircraft landing score of 80.7% is a generally positive result, there are several areas that require attention and improvement to ensure safer and more efficient landings in the future. It is recommended to focus on descent path, speed control, flare technique, touchdown accuracy, tailwind management, and runway alignment for better results in future flight operations. Keep up the good work and continue striving for excellence in your aircraft landings.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values