Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Departure
Make small rudder corrections against a fixed point at the far end of the runway to hold the centreline during the roll.
What happened: The aircraft drifted 4.8 m off the runway centreline during the ground roll, and wing drift like that usually keeps reappearing as bank in the climb, with 3.9° of bank in the first climb segment and 7.9° still showing in the second.
Watch for: Heading indicator: steady on the runway centreline during the roll, then wings level through the climb.
Arrival
Keep the back pressure coming once the flare is established, holding the nose up through to touchdown instead of easing it.
What happened: The flare arrested the sink but 498 fpm of it came back before touchdown, and in flights like this one that returning sink usually carries through to a firm or hard touchdown at 293 fpm.
Watch for: Vertical speed indicator: the sink held near zero all the way through touchdown, not allowed to build back up.
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 · 22 stages, 21 scored
Events
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.
One stabilised approach gate: seven 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.
At the 500 ft gate: sink rate above what the glideslope needed, off the runway's 3° glideslope, off the centreline, wings not level and speed above the reference speed.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 2,175 m of the approach.
Plan view — the full 2,175 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 1,749 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 22L at EBLG Liège Airport, a Boeing 767-200 aircraft operated by ANA. The takeoff distance was 776 meters, which accounted for 26% of the runway. The liftoff speed was 132 knots, and the local weather conditions at the time were characterized by a temperature of 19 degrees Celsius and a wind speed of 20 knots at 169 degrees.
As the aircraft climbed out of Liège Airport, it began its enroute climb, which started overhead the airport and Grâce-Hollogne. The climb took the aircraft from an altitude of 1,652 feet above sea level to 15,795 feet above sea level, an increase of 14,143 feet in just 7 minutes, covering a distance of 11 nautical miles. Following this initial climb, the aircraft entered a level cruise phase, which lasted for 48 minutes and covered a distance of 117 nautical miles. This cruise phase took place approximately 1 mile south east of EBST Sint-Truiden / Brustem Airfield.
The enroute descent phase began 2 miles south of Schmallenberg, Germany, where the aircraft descended from 16,039 feet above sea level to 9,550 feet above sea level, a decrease of 6,489 feet in just 3 minutes, covering a distance of 19 nautical miles. The aircraft then underwent another climb phase, this time from 9,153 feet above sea level to 10,076 feet above sea level, an increase of 923 feet in 2 minutes, covering a distance of 9 nautical miles. This climb phase took place 3 miles east of Willingen, Germany.
The enroute descent phase resumed 2 miles north west of EDVG Mengeringhausen Airfield, where the aircraft descended from 10,038 feet above sea level to 5,093 feet above sea level, a decrease of 4,945 feet in 5 minutes, covering a distance of 17 nautical miles. The aircraft then underwent another climb phase, this time from 3,369 feet above sea level to 2,280 feet above sea level, an increase of 1,088 feet in 2 minutes, covering a distance of 9 nautical miles. This climb phase took place 4 miles north of Lichtenau, Germany.
The final approach to runway 24 at EDLP Paderborn Lippstadt Airport was initiated from the north east, with the aircraft heading 239.0 degrees at 2 nautical miles and 1,499 feet above ground level. However, a go-around was performed at 4,115 feet above ground level. The aircraft then landed on runway 24, which had a length of 2,175 meters. The threshold height at 109 feet above ground level was excessively over target, and the threshold speed was excessively high at 217 knots.
The touchdown point was very long, using more than 50% of the available runway. The touchdown speed was good at 176 knots, but the touchdown rate was fair at -279 feet per minute. The runway touchdown alignment was very good. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were characterized by a temperature of 14 degrees Celsius and a wind speed of 6 knots at 170 degrees.
The total landing distance was 2,310 meters, which was 106% of the runway length. The runway rollout alignment was slightly misaligned by 14.6 meters from the centreline. The total flight distance was 188 nautical miles, and the flight duration was 44 minutes, with no fuel being used during the flight.
The Boeing 767-200 aircraft, operated by ANA, successfully landed at Paderborn Lippstadt Airport (EDLP) on runway 24. The final approach was initiated from the north-east, heading 239.0° at an altitude of 1,499 feet above ground level (agl) and 2 nautical miles from the runway. The aircraft maintained a good threshold height, but unfortunately, the threshold speed was excessively high at 218 kt, which may have been a concern for the pilots.
Upon landing, the aircraft touched down at a speed of 176 kt, which was considered good. However, the touchdown point was very long, utilizing more than 50% of the available runway. This may have been due to the high threshold speed and the pilots' attempt to maintain control of the aircraft. The touchdown rate was fair at -279 fpm, which is slightly above the ideal rate. The runway touchdown alignment was very good, indicating that the pilots maintained a stable approach and touchdown.
The local weather conditions at the time of landing were moderate, with a temperature of 14°C and a wind speed of 6 kt from 170°. The crosswind component was 6 kt, while the headwind component was 3 kt. These conditions may have contributed to the high threshold speed and the long touchdown point.
The total landing distance was 2,310 meters, which is 106% of the available runway length. This indicates that the aircraft utilized a significant portion of the runway to come to a stop. The runway rollout alignment was slightly misaligned by 14.6 meters from the centreline, which may have been due to the pilots' attempt to maintain control of the aircraft during the rollout phase.
Overall, the landing was considered satisfactory, but there were some areas for improvement, particularly with regards to the threshold speed and the touchdown point. The pilots demonstrated good control of the aircraft during the approach and touchdown phases, but may have benefited from a more precise control of the aircraft's speed and position during the final stages of the approach.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values