Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Shorten the long landing
Not the biggest loss in points — the one thing on this flight a check pilot would raise first, and the guide passage for it.
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 · 20 stages, 18 scored
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Two stabilised approach gates, each with six checks at 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 1,842 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,842 m of the 3,109 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 784 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The 2.79 G arrival is the firm side of smooth.
The rest of the report
Departing from Benito Juárez International Airport (MMMX) in Ciudad de México, Mexico, the Airbus A320 began its journey with a taxiing period of 8 minutes, covering a distance of 1 nautical mile. As it reached the runway, the aircraft initiated its departure roll on runway 05R, accelerating to a liftoff speed of 154 knots. The takeoff distance of 2,423 meters accounted for 70% of the runway length, a typical performance for the aircraft.
As the aircraft climbed out of MMMX, it transitioned into an enroute climb, reaching an altitude of 21,983 feet above sea level in 7 minutes, covering a distance of 36 nautical miles. The climb was followed by a brief enroute level cruise, lasting 2 minutes and covering 10 nautical miles. The aircraft then initiated another climb, this time reaching an altitude of 31,287 feet above sea level in 7 minutes, covering a distance of 50 nautical miles. The enroute level cruise that followed lasted 29 minutes, covering a significant distance of 202 nautical miles. As the aircraft began its descent, it transitioned into a steep descent, reducing its altitude from 31,282 feet above sea level to 1,415 feet above sea level in 18 minutes, covering a distance of 103 nautical miles.
The Airbus A320 finally approached runway 04 at Puerto Vallarta International Airport (MMPR), aligning itself with the runway from the southwest. The landing was notable for its excessive touchdown speed of 141 knots and heavy touchdown rate of -1,371 feet per minute. The touchdown point was 370 meters beyond the touchdown zone, and the runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 30.3 meters from the centerline. The total landing distance of 1,763 meters accounted for 57% of the runway length. Following the landing, the aircraft taxied to the parking area, covering a distance of less than 1 nautical mile in 4 minutes. The total flight distance was 409 nautical miles, with a flight time of 73 minutes and a fuel consumption of 2,563 kilograms.
The final approach to runway 04 at MMPR Puerto Vallarta International Airport was initiated from the south west, heading 48.0° at 4 nm and 1,389 ft above ground level. The approach quality was satisfactory, with a good threshold height achieved. However, the threshold speed was well above the target, reaching 143 kt, which may have contributed to the subsequent touchdown characteristics.
The aircraft touched down 370 m beyond the touchdown zone, with a touchdown speed of 141 kt, which was fast. The touchdown rate was very heavy, at -1,371 fpm, indicating a significant deceleration upon contact with the runway. Unfortunately, the runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 30.3 m from the centreline, which may have been a result of the excessive threshold speed. The local weather conditions, with a temperature of 28 °C, did not appear to have a significant impact on the landing.
The total landing distance was 1,763 m, which accounted for 57% of the runway length. The runway rollout alignment was excessively misaligned by 56.3 m from the centreline, indicating a loss of directional control during the rollout phase. Overall, the landing performance scored 71.6%, with areas for improvement identified in the threshold speed management, touchdown speed, and runway alignment during the rollout phase.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values