Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Maintain the centreline
A small uncorrected heading error at 40 knots becomes a metre of offset per second by 100 knots, noticed only at rotation, producing a crabbed liftoff. Root cause is nearly always eyes on the tape instead of the far end of the runway. Small heading changes displace a distant point visibly long before the nearby centreline stripes look wrong.
Read more in Improve Your Take-OffsStart to finish · 29 stages, 27 scored
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: 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 1,958 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,958 m of the 3,024 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 612 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Overall, achieving a landing score of 94.0% is truly commendable and reflects the skill and proficiency of the pilot during various phases of the landing process. Let's break down the analysis further to identify specific strengths and areas for improvement.
Starting with the Approach Phase, it is evident that the pilot excelled in maintaining the glideslope alignment, which is crucial for a smooth and controlled descent. Additionally, having the speed slightly above target indicates good control and awareness of the aircraft's performance. The pilot should be praised for their precision during this phase.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, while the threshold height was within acceptable parameters, the landing flare was identified as a weak point. It's important to ensure a proper flare technique to soften the touchdown and prevent a hard landing. This is an area where the pilot can focus on improving their technique for future landings.
In the Touchdown Phase, the touchdown rate was noted to be hard, which can potentially cause stress on the aircraft's landing gear and passengers. However, the speed at touchdown was on target, showing consistency in maintaining the desired approach speed. Attention should be given to refining the landing technique to achieve a smoother touchdown in future landings.
Despite the hard touchdown, the touchdown point being 199 m beyond the touchdown zone indicates ample room for improvement in terms of timing and accuracy. However, the runway touchdown position was labeled as very good, showing that the pilot was able to align the aircraft effectively with the runway during this critical phase.
Lastly, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment was slightly off centerline by 3.3 m. While this may be perceived as a minor deviation, it's essential to strive for precise alignment to ensure safe and efficient taxiing after touchdown.
Overall, this landing performance showcases a high level of proficiency with room for improvement in specific areas such as the landing flare and touchdown technique. By focusing on refining these aspects, the pilot can further enhance their skills and achieve even better landing scores in the future. This detailed analysis serves as a valuable feedback tool to guide the pilot towards continuous improvement and excellence in aircraft landing operations. Keep up the good work and continue to strive for excellence in every aspect of your flying endeavors.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values