Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Keep the approach speed on target
Every knot above Vref is stored kinetic energy, and energy stored at the threshold must be dissipated in ground effect before the aeroplane will stop flying. Because kinetic energy scales with the square of speed, the excess you must dissipate grows fast. At a 45-knot approach, five knots hot is over a tenth more speed and roughly a quarter more energy to get rid of in ground effect. This is why the fix is never in the flare. It was decided three miles earlier, on final, at the airspeed indicator.
Read more in VRef ExplainedStart to finish · 14 stages, 13 scored
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 for a circuit: five checks where the approach path is 500 ft above the runway. The 1,000 ft gate is an instrument-approach check and does not apply.
Side view — the last 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 1,651 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 897 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with a departure roll from runway 18 at Chambéry Savoie Mont Blanc Airport (LFLB), where the Cessna C182 aircraft took off with a distance of 448 meters, which is 27% of the runway length. The liftoff speed was 64 knots, and the local weather conditions were characterized by a temperature of 15°C and a wind speed of 10 knots at 11°.
As the aircraft entered the left-hand pattern, it demonstrated impressive agility, completing the entry in less than 1 nautical mile in just 14 seconds. The subsequent crosswind leg was also navigated efficiently, covering a distance of 1 nautical mile in 47 seconds. The pattern downwind turn was executed with precision, with the aircraft maintaining an angle of 74.6° to the runway. The downwind leg itself was completed in 66 seconds, covering a distance of 2 nautical miles.
The base leg turn was another highlight of the flight, with the aircraft maintaining an angle of 21.7° to the runway. The final approach to runway 18 was initiated from the north, with the aircraft flying at a heading of 175.0° at an altitude of 218 feet above ground level (agl) and a distance of 0 nautical miles from the runway.
However, the landing itself was not without its challenges. The touchdown point was located very far down the runway, using more than 50% of the available length. The touchdown speed of 69 knots was also excessively fast, and the touchdown rate of -280 feet per minute was only fair. Furthermore, the runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 22.0 meters from the centreline.
Despite these issues, the aircraft was able to come to a stop within the remaining runway length, with a total landing distance of 1,394 meters, which is 84% of the runway length. The runway rollout alignment was also misaligned by 22.0 meters from the centreline. After landing, the aircraft taxied to the parking area in just 1 minute, covering a distance of less than 1 nautical mile.
In terms of fuel efficiency, the flight used a total of 3 kilograms of fuel, covering a distance of 8 nautical miles in just 6 minutes. Overall, the flight demonstrated the Cessna C182's impressive agility and maneuverability, but also highlighted the importance of precise landing techniques to ensure a safe and efficient touchdown.
The Cessna C182 aircraft successfully landed at LFLB Chambéry Savoie Mont Blanc Airport, but the landing was not without its issues. The pilot scored 65.3% on this landing, indicating room for improvement. The final approach to runway 18 was initiated from the north, heading 175.0° at 0 nm and 218 ft above ground level (agl).
Upon landing, the pilot encountered some difficulties. The threshold speed was excessively high at 97 kn, which is above the recommended speed for a safe landing. This could have put additional stress on the aircraft and may have affected the pilot's ability to control the plane during the landing. The touchdown point was also very long, using more than 50% of the available runway. This indicates that the pilot may have been too high or too far back on the approach, resulting in a longer than necessary landing distance.
The touchdown speed of 69 kn was also excessively fast, which could have put additional stress on the aircraft and may have affected the pilot's ability to control the plane during the landing. The touchdown rate of -280 fpm was fair, indicating that the pilot was able to control the descent of the aircraft, but there is still room for improvement.
In addition to the issues with the landing itself, the pilot also struggled with runway alignment. The runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 22.0 m from the centreline, and the runway rollout alignment was also misaligned by 22.0 m from the centreline. This indicates that the pilot may have been having trouble maintaining a straight course during the landing.
The local weather conditions at the time of the landing were relatively calm, with a temperature of 15 °C and a wind of 10 kn at 11°. The crosswind was minimal at 2 kn, and the tailwind was 10 kn, which may have affected the pilot's ability to control the aircraft during the landing.
Overall, while the pilot was able to successfully land the aircraft, there are several areas that need improvement. With practice and attention to detail, the pilot should be able to achieve a higher score and a safer, more controlled landing.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values