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 · 19 stages, 17 scored
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
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 2,466 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 2,466 m of the 2,820 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 1,196 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Boeing 737-800 started at Dubai International Airport (OMDB) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The taxi from the parking area to the runway took 23 minutes and covered a distance of 5 nautical miles.
The departure roll was from runway 30R at OMDB. The takeoff distance was 1,499 meters, which was 42% of the total runway length. The liftoff speed was 157 knots. The local weather at the time of departure was 36°C with a wind speed of 13 knots coming from 300°. There was no crosswind, but there was a headwind of 13 knots.
The enroute climb began over Dubai International Airport and climbed from 1,013 feet above sea level to 34,494 feet, covering a total distance of 176 nautical miles in 27 minutes.
Once at cruise level, the flight was 54 miles north of Seeb in Muhafazat Masqat, Oman. The cruise lasted 102 minutes and covered a distance of 806 nautical miles.
The descent phase of the flight started 32 miles west of Tarapur in the State of Maharashtra, India. The descent was from 34,559 feet to 3,964 feet, covering a distance of 75 nautical miles in 16 minutes.
The landing was on runway 27 at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport (VABB) in Mumbai, India. The runway length was 2,820 meters. The height at the threshold was 91 feet above ground level, and the speed at the threshold was 143 knots. The touchdown occurred 1,060 meters from the threshold, with a touchdown speed of 128 knots and a vertical speed indicator (VSI) of -315 feet per minute. The local weather at the time of landing was 34°C with a wind speed of 8 knots coming from 40°. There was a crosswind of 6 knots and a tailwind of 5 knots.
The total landing distance was 2,252 meters, which was 80% of the total runway length.
After landing, the taxi from the runway to the parking area took 14 minutes and covered a distance of 2 nautical miles.
Overall, the flight covered a total distance of 1,085 nautical miles, took 200 minutes, and used 8,183 kilograms of fuel.
Firstly, it is important to acknowledge the aspects of the landing that were executed well. The touchdown rate and speed were on target, which shows that the pilot was able to control the aircraft effectively during the Touchdown Phase. However, there are multiple areas that need improvement in order to achieve a higher landing score.
During the Approach Phase, it is noted that the descent path was above the glideslope limit. This suggests that the pilot may have been descending too quickly or too steeply, leading to a poor approach to the runway. In addition, the Landing Phase revealed that the threshold height was significantly above the target, indicating that the aircraft was too high when approaching the runway. Furthermore, the landing flare was very poor, which likely contributed to the hard touchdown rate.
The Touchdown Phase also showed that the touchdown point was 646 meters beyond the touchdown zone, which is a significant deviation from the intended landing area. Additionally, the runway touchdown position was 18.1 meters from the centerline, indicating that the aircraft was not properly aligned with the runway. The fact that the aircraft landed with a 5 knot tailwind is a cause for concern, as this can affect the stability and control of the aircraft during landing.
Lastly, during the Rollout Phase, it is noted that the runway alignment was 17.2 meters from the centerline. This suggests that the pilot may have had difficulty maintaining the aircraft on the intended path after touchdown.
Overall, while there were some positive aspects of the landing, such as the on-target touchdown speed, there are several areas that require improvement in order to achieve a higher landing score. It is important for the pilot to focus on maintaining proper descent path, approach height, landing flare, touchdown point, runway alignment, and avoiding tailwinds in order to execute a safe and successful landing in the future. With practice and attention to detail, the pilot can work towards improving their landing technique and achieving a higher score in future landing assessments.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values