Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
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 · 21 stages, 19 scored
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 1,951 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,951 m of the 2,484 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 869 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Boeing 777-300 began at EDDC Dresden Airport in Germany. The taxi from the parking area to the runway took 8 minutes, covering 2 nm. The departure was from runway 22, with a takeoff distance of 1,749 m, which was 69% of the runway length. The liftoff speed was 168 kn. The local weather at the time of departure was 4 °C with a wind of 6 kn coming from 219°, resulting in a headwind of 6 kn and no crosswind.
The enroute climb started 1 mile southwest of Dresden Airport, climbing from 1,777 ft asl to 25,787 ft asl in 11 minutes, covering 65 nm. The enroute level cruise began 1 mile southwest of Hammerbruecke in Germany and lasted 18 minutes, covering 141 nm. The descent phase started over Alfdorf in Baden-Wuerttemberg, descending from 25,966 ft asl to 7,960 ft asl in 11 minutes, covering 79 nm. Another brief enroute level cruise occurred over Weinfelden in Switzerland for 2 minutes, covering 9 nm. The final descent began 1 mile northwest of Kirchberg in Switzerland, descending from 7,352 ft asl to 4,085 ft asl in 3 minutes, covering 10 nm.
The final approach to runway 28 at LSZH Zurich Airport was from the east, heading 275.0° at 4 nm and 1,538 ft agl. The landing occurred on runway 28 at LSZH Zurich Airport, with a threshold height of 74 ft agl. The touchdown speed was slightly above target at 146 kn, with a touchdown rate of -239 ft/m. The touchdown point was 452 m beyond the touchdown zone, and the runway touchdown position was misaligned by 13.4 m from the centerline. The total landing distance was 1,870 m, covering 75% of the runway length. The runway rollout alignment was misaligned by 16.4 m from the centerline. The local weather at the time of landing was 1 °C with a wind of 4 kn coming from 230°, resulting in a crosswind of 3 kn and a headwind of 3 kn.
After landing, taxiing from the runway to the parking area took 4 minutes, covering less than 1 nm. The total flight distance was 318 nm, taking 61 minutes, and the aircraft used 8,070 kg of fuel throughout the flight.
Overall, the aircraft landing score of 80.2% indicates that there is room for improvement in the various phases of the landing process.
Starting with the Approach Phase, the poor descent path above the glideslope limit suggests that there was some inconsistency in maintaining the correct angle of descent towards the runway. Additionally, the slightly above target threshold speed of 153 kt indicates that the aircraft approached the runway at a slightly higher speed than desired. This could potentially lead to a more challenging landing experience.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, the high threshold height of 74 ft agl being well above target could indicate that the pilot did not properly manage the descent towards the runway. Furthermore, the very poor landing flare suggests that the pilot may not have executed the final stage of the approach smoothly, potentially leading to a harder landing.
In the Touchdown Phase, while the touchdown rate of -239 ft/m is considered fair, the touchdown speed of 146 kt being a little fast suggests that the aircraft may have landed with more energy than desired. The touchdown point being 452 m beyond the touchdown zone could indicate a miscalculation in approach or landing execution. Additionally, the misalignment of the runway touchdown position by 13.4 m from the centerline suggests that the pilot may need to improve their alignment skills during the landing process.
In conclusion, while the aircraft landing score of 80.2% is not terrible, there are certainly areas that can be improved upon to enhance the overall landing performance. By focusing on maintaining proper descent paths, speed control, flare execution, touchdown precision, and alignment with the runway, the pilot can work towards achieving more consistent and smoother landings in the future. Practice, review, and attention to detail are key in refining landing techniques and increasing overall landing scores. Keep working hard and stay focused on continuous improvement in all aspects of the landing process.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values