Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
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 · 22 stages, 20 scored
Events
Events
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 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 2,959 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 559 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Learjet 35A began with a 7-minute taxi from the parking area to the runway at LIRA Ciampino–G. B. Pastine International Airport. The departure roll on runway 33 covered 809 meters, which was 37% of the total runway distance. The liftoff speed was 157 knots, with the local weather showing a temperature of 14°C and a wind speed of 14 knots at 0°, with a crosswind of 6 knots and a headwind of 12 knots.
The enroute climb started overhead Ciampino, Italy, and the aircraft climbed from 1,401 feet asl to 29,323 feet asl, covering 27,922 feet in 10 minutes and 49 nautical miles. The level cruise started 5 miles south of Montalto di Castro, lasting 116 minutes and covering 97 nautical miles.
The enroute descent commenced 8 miles east of Macinaggio, France, descending from 29,875 feet asl to 17,176 feet asl, covering 12,700 feet in 6 minutes and 41 nautical miles. A brief level cruise followed 34 miles northwest of Rogliano for 4 minutes and 26 nautical miles.
The next descent started 34 miles south of San Lorenzo al Mare, Italy, going from 16,815 feet asl to 4,244 feet asl, descending 12,570 feet in 4 minutes and covering 25 nautical miles. Another short level cruise began 19 miles southeast of Cap-d'Ail, France, lasting 11 minutes and covering 27 nautical miles.
The final descent commenced 3 miles south of Cannes, going from 3,672 feet asl to 999 feet asl, descending 2,672 feet in 4 minutes and covering 8 nautical miles. The final approach to runway 04R at LFMN Nice-Côte d'Azur Airport was from the southwest, with a heading of 42.0° at 4 nautical miles and 972 feet agl. The landing on runway 04R had certain deviations, including a slightly fast touchdown speed of 119 knots, a heavy touchdown rate of -675 ft/m, and a misalignment of 7.5 meters from the centerline. The total landing distance was 1,017 meters, which was 34% of the runway length.
After landing, a 4-minute taxi from the runway back to the parking area covered less than 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 280 nautical miles, taking 63 minutes and consuming 659 kg of fuel.
First and foremost, let's acknowledge that landing an aircraft is a complex and challenging task that requires a high level of skill and experience. While your overall landing score of 77.8% may not have been as high as desired, there are several specific areas that we can focus on for improvement in your next landing.
During the Approach Phase, it is crucial to maintain the correct descent path and heading alignment to ensure a safe and smooth landing. In this case, it appears that the descent path was above the glideslope limit and heading alignment was poor. These factors can contribute to a less-than-optimal landing experience. Additionally, the threshold speed slightly above the target at 131 knots suggests a need for better speed management during approach.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, it is important to note that the threshold height of 107 feet above ground level was excessively over the target. This indicates a need for more precise altitude control during the descent. Furthermore, the landing flare was identified as very poor, which can lead to a rough touchdown and potentially impact the overall landing quality.
In the Touchdown Phase, the heavy touchdown rate of -675 feet per minute suggests a need for smoother touchdown technique to minimize the impact on landing. The touchdown speed of 119 knots was slightly fast, which could be addressed through improved speed control during the landing phase. Additionally, landing beyond the touchdown zone and slightly misaligned from the centerline are areas where improved precision and alignment are needed for a successful landing.
Lastly, landing with a 3 knot tailwind is a safety concern that should be avoided whenever possible. Tailwinds can affect the aircraft's performance and increase the risk of a runway excursion, making it essential to prioritize landing with a headwind or crosswind for optimal safety.
Overall, while these specific areas for improvement have been highlighted, it is important to approach landing assessments with a growth mindset and a focus on continuous learning and improvement. By addressing these specific factors and practicing precision in each phase of the landing process, you can strive for smoother and more successful landings in the future. Remember, every landing is an opportunity to learn and grow as a pilot. Keep up the good work and continue to strive for excellence in your flying skills.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values