Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Departure
Roll the wings level with aileron and hold bank within limits as you establish the climb.
What happened: Bank increased to 2.8° during the initial climb, and wings stayed over-banked at 4.1° into the next climb segment.
Watch for: Attitude indicator bank angle, aiming to keep it near wings-level
Arrival
Apply steady, continuous back pressure through the flare to arrest the sink smoothly and hold the normal profile, rather than letting it drift.
What happened: The flare did not hold its target profile, with the sink most arrested at 0.1 ft, and this flight then touched down at 162 fpm of sink - a firm arrival. An unsettled flare profile like this usually carries through to a firmer touchdown.
Watch for: Vertical speed indicator: a smooth, steadily decreasing sink rate through the flare to touchdown.
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 · 14 stages, 12 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: 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 and off the centreline.
Side view — the last 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 2,592 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 789 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with taxiing from the parking area to the runway, which took 3 minutes and covered a distance of 2 nautical miles. The aircraft then departed from runway 22L at EBLG Liège Airport, with a takeoff distance of 659 meters, which accounted for 22% of the runway. The liftoff speed was 104 knots.
The local weather conditions at the time of departure were characterized by a temperature of 19 degrees Celsius and a wind speed of 10 knots from a direction of 300 degrees. This resulted in a crosswind of 10 knots and a headwind of 3 knots. The aircraft then entered a level cruise, starting 1 mile south of Saint-Georges-sur-Meuse in Wallonia, Belgium, and lasted for 1 minute, covering a distance of 3 nautical miles.
The enroute climb began 1 mile south east of Engis, Belgium, and involved ascending from an altitude of 1,257 feet above sea level to 8,362 feet above sea level, an increase of 7,105 feet, in 3 minutes and covering 6 nautical miles. The enroute descent started 1 mile east of Boncelles, Belgium, and involved descending from 8,654 feet above sea level to 4,038 feet above sea level, a decrease of 4,616 feet, in 2 minutes and covering 4 nautical miles.
The aircraft then entered another level cruise, starting 1 mile east of Beaufays, Belgium, and lasted for 13 minutes, covering a distance of 32 nautical miles. The flight eventually landed on runway 24 at EBSU Saint Hubert Air Base, with a runway length of 2,592 meters. The threshold height at 156 feet above ground level was excessively over target, and the threshold speed was slightly above target at 97 knots.
The touchdown point was 356 meters beyond the touchdown zone, with a touchdown speed of 82 knots, which was a little fast. The touchdown rate was fair at -248 feet per minute. The runway touchdown position was slightly misaligned by 3.3 meters from the centreline. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were characterized by a temperature of 14 degrees Celsius and a wind speed of 8 knots from a direction of 339 degrees, resulting in a crosswind of 8 knots and a tailwind of 1 knot.
The total landing distance was 1,107 meters, accounting for 43% of the runway. The runway rollout alignment was misaligned by 17.7 meters from the centreline. The total flight distance was 53 nautical miles, taking 27 minutes, and the aircraft used 0 kilograms of fuel.
The aircraft in question, an M500, successfully landed on runway 24 at EBSU Saint Hubert Air Base, but with some notable deviations from the ideal landing parameters. The threshold height at 156 ft above ground level (agl) was significantly higher than the target, indicating that the pilot may have been slightly high on final approach. This could be attributed to a variety of factors, including the pilot's experience level, the aircraft's performance characteristics, or the presence of any external factors such as wind or turbulence.
Upon touchdown, the aircraft's speed was 97 kt, which was only slightly above the target threshold speed. However, the touchdown speed of 82 kt was a bit faster than desired, suggesting that the pilot may have been unable to fully arrest the aircraft's descent before touching down. The touchdown rate of -248 fpm was considered fair, indicating that the pilot was able to manage the aircraft's descent to some extent.
The touchdown point was located 356 m beyond the designated touchdown zone, which is a significant deviation from the ideal landing point. This could be attributed to a variety of factors, including the pilot's judgment, the aircraft's performance characteristics, or the presence of any external factors such as wind or turbulence. The runway touchdown position was also slightly misaligned by 3.3 m from the centreline, which could have contributed to the overall deviation from the ideal landing parameters.
The local weather conditions at the time of the landing were relatively calm, with a temperature of 14 °C and a wind speed of 8 kt at 339 °. The crosswind component was 8 kt, while the tailwind component was only 1 kt, suggesting that the wind was not a significant factor in the landing. The total landing distance was 1,107 m, which is 43% of the runway length. This is a relatively long landing distance, suggesting that the pilot may have been unable to fully utilize the available runway length.
Finally, the runway rollout alignment was misaligned by 17.7 m from the centreline, which could have contributed to the overall deviation from the ideal landing parameters. Overall, while the pilot was able to successfully land the aircraft, there were several notable deviations from the ideal landing parameters, suggesting that further training or practice may be necessary to improve the pilot's skills.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values