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 · 17 stages, 16 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 3,347 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 747 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Firstly, I want to commend the pilot for achieving an aircraft landing score of 89.7%. This is a very respectable score and shows a high level of skill and proficiency in handling the aircraft during the landing process.
However, there are areas where improvement can be made to further enhance the landing performance. In the Approach Phase, it is noted that there was a poor descent path above the glideslope limit. This means that the aircraft descended too steeply or too shallowly, leading to a less than optimal approach angle. By ensuring a smooth and gradual descent along the designated glideslope, the pilot can improve the accuracy and precision of the approach phase.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, it is mentioned that the threshold height was above the target and there was a poor landing flare. The threshold height being above the target suggests that the aircraft was higher than desired when passing over the runway threshold. This can result in a longer touchdown distance and potentially a harder landing. Additionally, a poor landing flare can lead to a less smooth touchdown and potentially a higher touchdown rate. Focusing on achieving the correct threshold height and executing a proper landing flare can greatly improve the quality of the landing.
Finally, in the Touchdown Phase, it is noted that the touchdown rate was firm and the touchdown point was 334 meters beyond the touchdown zone. Additionally, the runway touchdown position was 10.0 meters from the centerline. A firm touchdown rate can be indicative of a harder landing, which can increase wear and tear on the aircraft landing gear. Ensuring a smoother touchdown can help reduce these impacts. Additionally, aiming to touchdown within the designated touchdown zone and closer to the centerline can improve the overall precision of the landing.
In conclusion, while the aircraft landing score of 89.7% is already commendable, there are several areas where targeted improvements can be made to further enhance the landing performance. By focusing on maintaining a proper descent path, achieving the correct threshold height, executing a smooth landing flare, and aiming for a precise touchdown within the designated parameters, the pilot can continue to refine their skills and achieve even better landing scores in the future. Keep up the good work and continue striving for excellence in aircraft landings!
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values