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.
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 1,662 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,662 m of the 3,661 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 381 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with the aircraft, an Airbus A319, taxiing from the parking area to the runway at KONT Ontario International Airport. This process took approximately 8 minutes and covered a distance of 2 nautical miles. The departure roll took place on runway 26L, with the aircraft lifting off after a takeoff distance of 1,750 meters, which accounted for 56% of the runway. The liftoff speed was 160 knots.
As the aircraft took to the skies, it encountered local weather conditions of 31°C temperature and winds of 11 knots at 230 degrees. The crosswind was 7 knots, while the headwind was 9 knots. The enroute climb began approximately 1 mile south east of Ontario, California, and involved a significant increase in altitude from 2,008 feet above sea level to 37,785 feet above sea level, a total increase of 35,778 feet. This climb took 17 minutes and covered a distance of 79 nautical miles.
Following the climb, the aircraft entered a level cruise phase, which started 9 miles east of CN23 Harvard Airport Yermo, California. This phase lasted for 47 minutes and covered a distance of 308 nautical miles. The enroute descent began 3 miles north west of Richfield, Utah, and involved a decrease in altitude from 37,943 feet above sea level to 5,512 feet above sea level, a total decrease of 32,431 feet. This descent took 20 minutes and covered a distance of 115 nautical miles.
The final approach to runway 34R at KSLC Salt Lake City International Airport was made from the south, with the aircraft heading at 355.0 degrees at an altitude of 4 nautical miles and 1,272 feet above ground level. The landing took place on runway 34R, which had a length of 3,661 meters. The threshold height was significantly above the target, but the threshold speed was good at 120 knots.
The touchdown distance was good at 384 meters, and the touchdown speed was also good at 116 knots. However, the touchdown rate was very heavy at -757 feet per minute. The runway touchdown position was misaligned by 9.9 meters from the centreline. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were 31°C temperature and winds of 9 knots at 289 degrees, with a crosswind of 8 knots and a headwind of 4 knots.
Following the landing, the aircraft taxied to the parking area, a process that took approximately 2 minutes and covered a distance of less than 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 511 nautical miles, and the flight duration was 94 minutes. The aircraft used a total of 3,425 kilograms of fuel during the flight.
The Airbus A319 aircraft successfully landed at Salt Lake City International Airport (KSLC) on runway 34R, but the landing was not without some issues. The aircraft was approaching the runway from the south, heading 355.0° at a distance of 4 nautical miles and an altitude of 1,272 feet above ground level (agl). The final approach was conducted with a good threshold speed of 120 knots, which is a crucial factor in ensuring a safe landing.
However, the threshold height at 81 feet agl was significantly above the target, indicating that the aircraft may have been higher than expected when it reached the runway threshold. This could have been due to a variety of factors, including the aircraft's descent rate or the pilot's decision to extend the approach. Fortunately, the touchdown distance of 384 meters was good, and the touchdown speed of 116 knots was also within acceptable limits.
Despite the good touchdown speed, the touchdown rate was very heavy at -757 feet per minute (fpm), which is a concern. A heavy touchdown rate can put excessive stress on the aircraft's landing gear and can also affect the safety of the passengers and crew. The runway touchdown position was also misaligned by 9.9 meters from the centerline, which could have been due to a combination of factors, including wind, pilot error, or a malfunctioning autopilot system.
The local weather conditions at the time of the landing were relatively calm, with a temperature of 31°C and a wind speed of 9 knots from 289°. The crosswind component was 8 knots, while the headwind component was 4 knots. These conditions were not particularly challenging, and the pilots should have been able to handle them with ease.
The total landing distance of 1,579 meters was 43% of the runway length, which is a relatively short distance. However, the runway rollout alignment was slightly misaligned by 9.6 meters from the centerline, which could have been due to a combination of factors, including the heavy touchdown rate and the misaligned touchdown position.
Overall, the landing was not perfect, but it was still considered successful. The pilots should review the flight data to identify the causes of the issues and take corrective action to improve their performance.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values