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 · 19 stages, 17 scored
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 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 1,651 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 362 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 quick taxi from the parking area to the runway at LFKA Albertville General Pierre Delachenal Airfield. The taxi took only 1 minute and covered less than 1 nm. The departure roll was from runway 23, and the aircraft took off after a distance of 250 meters, which was 36% of the total runway length. The liftoff speed was 56 knots. The local weather at the time of departure was 15°C with a wind of 10 knots at 11°, presenting a crosswind of 7 knots and a tailwind of 8 knots.
The enroute climb started overhead Sainte-Helene-sur-Isere in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, France. The aircraft climbed from 2,015 ft asl to 5,322 ft asl, covering 3,307 ft in altitude over 7 nm in 3 minutes. The level cruise during the flight was over Chateauneuf in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, lasting 4 minutes and covering 10 nm.
The descent phase commenced 1 mile northwest of Apremont in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, where the aircraft descended from 4,898 ft asl to 3,172 ft asl. This descent covered a vertical distance of 1,726 ft and a horizontal distance of 3 nm in 2 minutes.
The landing was on runway 36 at LFLB Chambéry Savoie Mont Blanc Airport, where the runway length was 1,651 meters. The height at the threshold was 78 ft agl, and the speed at the threshold was 64 knots. The touchdown occurred 361 meters from the threshold with a touchdown speed of 42 knots and a VSI of -119 ft/min. The local weather at the time of landing was 15°C with a wind of 10 knots at 11°, resulting in a crosswind of 2 knots and a headwind of 10 knots. The total landing distance was 473 meters, which was 29% of the total runway length.
After landing, taxiing from the runway to the parking area took 1 minute and covered less than 1 nm. The total flight distance was 26 nm, which took 23 minutes to complete. During the flight, the aircraft consumed 9 kg of fuel.
Let's start by acknowledging the positive aspects of the aircraft landing score of 82.7%. During the Touchdown Phase, the touchdown rate was smooth, and the speed was on target. Additionally, the touchdown distance was inside the touchdown zone, and the runway touchdown position was only 3.1 meters from the centerline. These are all commendable points that contributed to the overall score.
However, it's important to address the areas that need improvement to enhance the landing performance further. In the Approach Phase, the descent path was poor, being above the glideslope limit. This could potentially lead to a less stable approach and increase the risk of a hard landing. Furthermore, the heading alignment was poor, which could affect the overall precision of the landing.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, while the threshold height was above target, indicating a higher than desired altitude at the point of touchdown, the most concerning issue was the very poor landing flare. The flare is a crucial technique used to reduce the rate of descent and ensure a smooth touchdown. A poor flare can result in a harder landing, which can be uncomfortable for passengers and put unnecessary stress on the aircraft.
Despite the challenges faced during the Approach and Landing Phases, the Rollout Phase saw very good runway alignment. Maintaining proper alignment during rollout is essential for safely exiting the runway and taxiing to the terminal.
In order to improve the overall landing score, it would be beneficial to focus on correcting the descent path above the glideslope limit, improving heading alignment, practicing the landing flare technique, and ensuring that the threshold height is within the target range. By addressing these areas, the landing performance can be further enhanced, leading to safer and smoother landings in the future. Keep up the hard work and focus on continuous improvement to achieve even better results next time.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values