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 · 18 stages, 16 scored
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 seven checks, where the approach path is 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 1,621 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,621 m of the 2,977 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 859 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with the aircraft taxiing from the parking area to the runway, a process that took 4 minutes and covered less than 1 nautical mile. The Airbus A320 then departed from runway 28 at Zürich Airport (LSZH), with a takeoff distance of 1,121 meters, which was 45% of the runway length. The liftoff speed was 145 knots.
As the aircraft took off, it encountered local weather conditions of 9°C temperature and a wind speed of 14 knots at 179°. The crosswind component was 14 knots, while the tailwind component was 1 knot. After departing from Zürich, the aircraft began its enroute climb, which started overhead Oberglatt in the Kanton Zurich, Switzerland. The climb took 7 minutes and covered 15 nautical miles, with the aircraft ascending from 2,433 feet above sea level to 18,544 feet above sea level, an increase of 16,112 feet.
Following the enroute climb, the aircraft entered a level cruise phase, which started overhead Muhlau in the Kanton Aargau, Switzerland. This phase lasted for 10 minutes and covered 65 nautical miles. The aircraft then began its enroute descent, which started overhead Malesco in the Piemonte, Italy. The descent took 15 minutes and covered 36 nautical miles, with the aircraft descending from 18,643 feet above sea level to 1,988 feet above sea level, a decrease of 16,655 feet.
The final approach to runway 35R at Milan Malpensa International Airport (LIMC) was made from the south, with the aircraft heading 349.0° at 4 nautical miles and 1,229 feet above ground level. The landing was made on runway 35R, which had a length of 2,977 meters. The threshold height at 78 feet above ground level was well above the target, while the threshold speed was good at 139 knots.
The touchdown point was 442 meters beyond the touchdown zone, with the touchdown speed being a little fast at 132 knots. The touchdown rate was fair at -277 feet per minute. The runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 20.1 meters from the centerline. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were 5°C temperature and a wind speed of 3 knots at 160°, with a crosswind component of 0 knots and a tailwind component of 3 knots.
The total landing distance was 1,540 meters, which was 52% of the runway length. The runway rollout alignment was misaligned by 23.5 meters from the centerline. After landing, the aircraft taxiied to the parking area, a process that took 6 minutes and covered less than 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 124 nautical miles, with the flight taking 44 minutes and using 1,704 kilograms of fuel.
The Airbus A320 aircraft successfully landed on runway 35R at LIMC Milan Malpensa International Airport, but with some notable deviations from the ideal landing parameters. The final approach was initiated from the south, heading 349.0° at a distance of 4 nautical miles and an altitude of 1,229 feet above ground level (agl). The aircraft touched down on the runway, but the touchdown point was 442 meters beyond the designated touchdown zone, indicating a slight overextension of the landing.
The touchdown speed of 132 knots was slightly faster than the target speed, which could have contributed to the overextension. However, the touchdown rate of -277 feet per minute (fpm) was considered fair, suggesting that the aircraft was able to absorb the impact of landing relatively smoothly. The threshold height at 78 feet agl was well above the target, which may have affected the aircraft's ability to maintain a stable approach.
The runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 20.1 meters from the centerline, indicating a deviation from the ideal landing path. This misalignment could have been caused by a combination of factors, including wind conditions and pilot error. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were characterized by a temperature of 5°C and a wind speed of 3 knots at 160°, with a crosswind of 0 knots and a tailwind of 3 knots.
The total landing distance of 1,540 meters was 52% of the runway length, which is within the acceptable range. However, the runway rollout alignment was misaligned by 23.5 meters from the centerline, indicating a continued deviation from the ideal landing path even after touchdown. Overall, while the landing was successful, there were several areas for improvement, including maintaining a more stable approach, aligning the aircraft with the centerline, and reducing the touchdown speed.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values