Events
Events
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 · 20 stages, 19 scored
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: 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 1,645 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,645 m of the 3,595 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 790 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Airbus A380 started at King Khaled International Airport (OERK) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The taxiing from the parking to the runway took 8 minutes and covered 5 nm. The departure was from runway 15L with a takeoff distance of 1,513 m, representing 36% of the runway. The liftoff speed was 163 knots. The local weather at the time of departure was 32°C with a wind speed of 14 knots coming from 130°, resulting in a crosswind of 5 knots and a headwind of 13 knots.
The enroute climb began 1 mile southeast of OERK and took the aircraft from 3,029 ft asl to 26,255 ft asl, covering 26 nm in 6 minutes. The enroute level cruise started 23 miles west of Wasea Airport (OEPC) in Riyadh and lasted 2 minutes, covering 17 nm. The next climb started 26 miles northwest of OEPC and took the plane from 25,951 ft asl to 38,127 ft asl, covering 38 nm in 4 minutes. This was followed by a 38-minute enroute level cruise starting 56 miles north of OEPC, covering 296 nm.
The descent phase of the flight commenced 45 miles south of Lavan Airport (OIBV) in Iran. The aircraft descended from 38,272 ft asl to 2,290 ft asl, a decrease of 35,982 ft in 28 minutes, covering 154 nm. The landing took place on runway 30L at Dubai International Airport (OMDB) with a runway length of 3,595 m. The aircraft was 57 ft agl at the threshold with a speed of 163 knots. The touchdown occurred 791 m from the threshold with a touchdown speed of 159 knots and a VSI of -242 ft/m. The local weather at the time of landing was 33°C with a wind speed of 10 knots from 340°, resulting in a crosswind of 6 knots and a headwind of 8 knots. The total landing distance was 1,576 m, representing 44% of the runway length.
After landing, the taxiing from the runway to the parking area took 4 minutes, covering less than 1 nm. The total flight distance was 559 nm, with a total flight time of 114 minutes. The aircraft consumed 16,764 kg of fuel during the flight.
Overall, the aircraft landing score of 83.9% indicates a decent performance, but there are definitely areas that can be improved upon.
The Approach Phase stood out positively with excellent glideslope alignment and speed well above target. This shows good control and precision during the approach towards the runway.
However, the Landing Phase revealed some weaknesses. The threshold height was slightly above target, indicating that adjustments can be made to achieve a smoother descent. The poor landing flare suggests a need for better coordination during the final moments before touchdown. Additionally, the lack of bank angle stability during landing could be a concern for safety reasons.
Moving on to the Touchdown Phase, the touchdown rate was fair but could be improved for a smoother landing. The speed being a little above target is something that can be adjusted with more practice and attention to detail. The touchdown point being significantly beyond the touchdown zone highlights the need for better judgment and control during this phase. Similarly, the runway touchdown position being off-center raises concerns about alignment and precision.
Finally, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment being 17.2 m from the centerline indicates that adjustments are needed to ensure the aircraft stays on course post-landing.
In conclusion, while the overall score is decent, there are clear areas for improvement in various phases of the landing process. With focus, practice, and attention to detail, these weaknesses can be addressed to ensure a smoother and safer landing in the future. Keep up the effort and continuous improvement mindset to achieve better scores and overall performance in aircraft landings.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values