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 · 23 stages, 21 scored
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 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 2,959 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 503 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Airbus A320 began with a 7-minute taxi from the parking area to the runway at LICJ Punta Raisi. The departure roll on runway 25 covered 3,904 ft, with the aircraft reaching a liftoff speed of 163 knots. The local weather at departure was 73°F with a wind of 13 knots at 280°, resulting in a crosswind of 7 knots and a headwind of 11 knots.
The enroute climb started over Palermo, Sicily, climbing from 1,044 ft to 38,355 ft in 22 minutes, covering 137 nm. The level cruise portion of the flight began 69 miles southwest of Ponza, Lazio, lasting 20 minutes and covering 149 nm. The descent phase started 15 miles south of Marina di Campo, Tuscany, descending from 38,475 ft to 17,387 ft in 13 minutes, covering 90 nm.
Another brief level cruise segment took place 41 miles southeast of Cervo, Liguria, lasting 9 minutes and covering 54 nm. The following descent began 14 miles southeast of Antibes, Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur, descending from 17,008 ft to 4,195 ft in 6 minutes, covering 29 nm. A short level cruise occurred 8 miles east of Ramatuelle, lasting 4 minutes and covering 17 nm. The final descent commenced 3 miles south of Theoule-sur-Mer, descending from 4,016 ft to 1,899 ft in 3 minutes, covering 11 nm.
The landing took place on runway 04R at LFMN Nice/Cote d'Azur, with a runway length of 9,708 ft. The aircraft touched down 1,651 ft from the threshold at a speed of 128 knots, with a vertical speed of -542 ft/min. The total landing distance was 3,886 ft, using 40% of the runway. The aircraft then taxied for 5 minutes back to the parking area, covering less than 1 nm.
Overall, the flight covered a total distance of 496 nm, taking 189 minutes and consuming 8,774 lbs of fuel.
First and foremost, let's congratulate on the successful completion of the aircraft landing with a score of 79.9%! This is a commendable achievement and a testament to the skill and expertise of the pilot.
Let's delve into the analysis of the different phases of the landing to understand where improvements can be made.
During the Approach Phase, it is noted that there was good glideslope alignment, which is essential for a smooth descent towards the runway. This indicates that the pilot demonstrated good control and precision throughout this phase of the landing.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, there are areas that can be improved upon. The threshold height being above target suggests that the pilot may have descended too late or too quickly, leading to a less than optimal approach to the runway. Additionally, the poor landing flare and bank angle stability during landing suggests that there may have been some issues with the execution of the final moments before touchdown. These aspects are critical for a safe and smooth landing, and focusing on improving them could lead to better overall performance.
In the Touchdown Phase, the heavy touchdown rate and the touchdown point being 308 ft beyond the touchdown zone are indicators of a less than ideal landing. While the speed was on target, the positioning of the touchdown point and the runway touchdown position being 28 ft from the centreline suggest that there were challenges in aligning the aircraft correctly for landing. This phase requires a delicate balance of speed, altitude, and alignment, and practice and attention to detail can help improve performance in this area.
Finally, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment being 75 ft from the centreline indicates that there was some deviation from the intended path during the rollout after landing. Maintaining alignment is crucial for the overall safety and efficiency of the landing process, and working on this aspect can contribute to a smoother and more controlled landing experience.
Overall, while there were areas that can be improved upon, it is important to recognize the successes and strengths demonstrated during the landing. By focusing on the identified areas for improvement and continuing to practice and refine skills, the pilot can work towards achieving even better landing scores in the future. Keep up the great work and continue striving for excellence in all aspects of aviation.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values