Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Shorten the long landing
Ground effect becomes significant below about one wingspan of height. A Cessna 172, with a 36 ft span, enters ground effect at flare height - the float it feels in the hold-off is ground effect arriving on cue. An A320, with a span around 117 ft, has been in ground effect since before the threshold and there is no sudden cushion to feel, only a gradual reduction in induced drag that lengthens any float you allow.
Read more in Flare TimingStart to finish · 21 stages, 20 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.
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 5,000 ft of the approach.
Plan view — the first 5,000 ft of the 7,970 ft runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 3,288 ft past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Overall, the analysis of this aircraft landing shows a mixed performance in different phases of the landing process.
During the Approach Phase, the descent path was poor as the aircraft was above the glideslope limit. However, the heading alignment was excellent and the speed was on target. This indicates that the pilot was able to maintain the correct direction and speed of the aircraft, but struggled with the descent angle.
In the Landing Phase, the threshold height was noted as extremely high, indicating that the aircraft was too high above the runway upon approach. Additionally, the landing flare was described as very poor, suggesting that the pilot did not effectively adjust the pitch of the aircraft to ensure a smooth touchdown.
Despite these issues, the Touchdown Phase showed some positive aspects. The touchdown rate was good and the speed was on target, indicating that the actual touchdown of the aircraft was controlled and within the desired parameters. However, the touchdown point was 1849 ft beyond the designated touchdown zone, which could indicate a longer landing distance than planned. Additionally, the runway touchdown position was 34 ft from the centreline, suggesting a slight deviation from the desired alignment.
In the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment was noted as 34 ft from the centreline, indicating that the aircraft may have drifted slightly off course during the rollout after landing.
Overall, the analysis of this aircraft landing highlights some areas of improvement needed in descent path management, landing flare technique, and alignment during touchdown and rollout. These findings could be used to provide feedback and training opportunities for the pilot to improve their landing skills in future flights.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values