Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Arrival
Apply small rudder corrections at touchdown, aiming at a point at the far end of the runway, to stay on the centreline.
What happened: Touchdown drifted 5.6 m off the centreline, and landings like this usually carry that drift into the rollout, where the alignment error grew to 13 m.
Watch for: Runway centreline: aircraft tracking directly over it through touchdown and rollout.
A crosswind landing is a geometry problem. The air mass you're flying in is moving sideways across the runway, and you need your ground track down the centreline with your wheels aligned to it at the moment of contact. There are two techniques that will help, the crab and the sideslip.
Read more in Crosswind Landings in the SimStart to finish · 17 stages, 15 scored
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.
Two stabilised approach gates, each with seven checks, where the approach path is 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway. They are the approach's score: the checks passed out of the checks that ran.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 3,594 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 562 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Departing from London Stansted Airport, the Airbus A320 began its journey on runway 22, accelerating down the 1,799-meter stretch to achieve liftoff at a speed of 162 knots. The aircraft's takeoff distance accounted for 66% of the available runway, a testament to its efficient performance. As it departed the UK, the aircraft encountered a gentle headwind of 9 knots, which would prove beneficial for the remainder of the flight.
As the aircraft climbed to its enroute cruise altitude, it traversed a significant portion of Europe, passing over Birchanger in Essex, Vladslo in Flanders, and eventually Havsa in Turkey. The climb phase was completed in 21 minutes, during which the aircraft ascended from 1,270 feet to 34,871 feet, an increase of 33,601 feet. The enroute level cruise phase that followed was the longest segment of the flight, lasting 152 minutes and covering 1,151 nautical miles. The aircraft then began its descent, initially from 35,014 feet to 3,421 feet in 21 minutes, before making a brief level cruise at 7 miles south west of Kinali. The final descent phase saw the aircraft touch down on runway 06R at Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen International Airport, with a total landing distance of 1,197 meters, or 34% of the available runway.
The landing was characterized by a slightly misaligned touchdown position and a touchdown speed of 137 knots, which was a little fast. However, the touchdown rate of -83 feet per minute was excellent. The aircraft then taxied to the parking area, completing the journey in 211 minutes and covering a total distance of 1,413 nautical miles. The flight utilized 8,146 kilograms of fuel, a testament to the aircraft's efficiency and the careful planning of the flight crew.
The final approach to runway 06R at LTFJ Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen International Airport was conducted from the south west, heading 64.0° at 4 nm and 1,308 ft above ground level. The approach quality was satisfactory, with a good threshold height achieved. However, the threshold speed was slightly above the target at 144 kt, indicating a slight deviation from the optimal landing conditions.
The aircraft touched down 142 m beyond the touchdown zone, with a touchdown speed of 137 kt, which was a little fast. Nevertheless, the touchdown rate was excellent at -83 fpm, demonstrating good control and precision. The runway touchdown position was slightly misaligned by 5.6 m from the centreline, which was a minor deviation from the ideal alignment. Local weather conditions, with a temperature of 12 °C and wind at 25 kt at 50°, contributed to the landing performance.
The total landing distance was 1,197 m, which accounted for 34% of the runway length. The runway rollout alignment was slightly misaligned by 13.3 m from the centreline, indicating a minor deviation from the ideal path. Overall, the landing performance scored 93.2%, reflecting a satisfactory outcome despite some minor deviations from the optimal conditions.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values