Events
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
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 five checks, where the approach path is 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway.
At the 1,000 ft gate: sink rate above what the glideslope needed and off the runway's 3.5° glideslope.
At the 500 ft gate: sink rate above what the glideslope needed.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 1,956 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,956 m of the 2,166 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 490 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with a taxiing process that took 5 minutes to cover a distance of 1 nautical mile from the parking area to the runway. Once at the runway, the aircraft took off from runway 12 at SBMO Zumbi dos Palmares Airport, located in Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil. The takeoff distance was 1,092 meters, which accounted for 44% of the runway. The liftoff speed was 142 knots.
As the aircraft climbed out of SBMO, the initial descent was followed by a rapid ascent to 35,013 feet above sea level, an increase of 33,627 feet from a starting point of 1,386 feet. This ascent covered a distance of 100 nautical miles and took approximately 18 minutes. Once en route, the aircraft entered a level cruise 4 nautical miles north of Nossa Senhora das Dores, Sergipe, Brazil. This cruise phase lasted 96 minutes and covered 679 nautical miles.
Over the course of the flight, the aircraft experienced multiple descent and ascent periods, each marked by a change in altitude. One notable descent took place 5 miles east of SJPQ Fazenda Buriti Airport, Unaí, Minas Gerais, Brazil, where the aircraft descended 10,192 feet in just 5 minutes, covering 32 nautical miles. Another significant descent happened 15 miles south west of SWUZ Brigadeiro Araripe Macedo Airport, Luziânia, Goias, Brazil, in which the aircraft descended from 24,878 feet to 6,218 feet, a 18,660 feet decrease, in 10 minutes while covering 58 nautical miles.
The flight continued with several level cruise phases, each brief and focused on a particular region. The final approach to runway 14 at SBGO Santa Genoveva Airport was initiated from the north west, heading in a direction of 124.0 degrees at an altitude of 1,334 feet. However, the touchdown was marked by several issues, including a threshold height that was above target, threshold speed that was excessively high, touchdown speed that was too fast, and a heavy touchdown rate.
The aircraft landed on runway 14 at SBGO Santa Genoveva Airport, a runway that is 2,166 meters long. Touchdown occurred 93 meters beyond the touchdown zone, with a touchdown speed of 168 knots and a touchdown rate of -614 feet per minute. The runway touchdown position was slightly misaligned by 5.9 meters from the centerline. Local weather conditions included a temperature of 23 °C, with winds blowing at 4 knots at a direction of 320 degrees. This resulted in a crosswind of 1 knot and a tailwind of 3 knots.
Once the aircraft had touched down, it taxied to the parking area, a process that took 2 minutes and covered less than 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 911 nautical miles, and the total flight time was 143 minutes. Fuel consumption during this period was 4,171 kilograms.
The E195 aircraft landed at SBGO Santa Genoveva Airport, attempting to make a precision landing. However, the actual performance deviated from the desired outcome in several areas. The aircraft initiated its final approach to runway 14 from the northwest at an altitude of 1,334 feet and a heading of 124.0°. This was 2 nautical miles from the runway at the time and positioned the aircraft at an optimal point to begin its descent onto the runway.
Upon reaching the threshold, it became apparent that the aircraft was not in the correct configuration for landing. The threshold height was 65 feet agl, which was above the target height, and the threshold speed of 177 kt was excessively high, indicating a potential issue with the aircraft's airspeed control during descent. These deviations suggested a disconnect between the pilot's expectations and the aircraft's actual performance.
The aircraft touched down 93 meters beyond the designated touchdown zone, indicating a slight overshoot. The touchdown speed of 168 kt was also recorded as too fast, and the touchdown rate of -614 fpm was considered heavy, suggesting that the pilot had not adequately managed the aircraft's rate of descent and airspeed. Furthermore, the runway touchdown position was slightly misaligned by 5.9 meters from the centerline, highlighting the need for greater control over the aircraft's lateral movement during approach.
The local weather conditions at the time of landing played a moderate role in the aircraft's performance. A temperature of 23°C and a wind speed of 4 kt at 320° did not significantly impact the aircraft's trajectory, although a moderate crosswind of 1 kt and a tailwind of 3 kt could have slightly affected the aircraft's rate of descent and touchdown position. Despite these environmental factors, the pilot's ability to maintain control over the aircraft's descent and touchdown was compromised, resulting in an unsatisfactory landing score of 73.6%.
In the aftermath of the landing, the pilot's ability to handle the aircraft's deceleration and alignment with the runway centerline following touchdown was also found to be lacking. The runway rollout alignment was misaligned by 15.8 meters from the centerline, indicating that the pilot had lost situational awareness and failed to effectively manage the aircraft's roll and yaw during the landing roll. This performance raises concerns about the pilot's judgment and skills in conducting safe landings.
To avoid similar incidents in the future, it is essential to revisit and refine the pilot's approach strategy, airspeed management, and control techniques. Proper evaluation and analysis of the flight data should be undertaken to identify areas that require improvement and implement corresponding training sessions and exercises to enhance the pilot's skills and overall situational awareness during landing operations.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values