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 · 13 stages, 12 scored
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 1,230 m of the approach.
Plan view — the full 1,230 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 450 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Cessna Skyhawk started with a departure roll on runway 25C at EDDF Frankfurt Airport. The takeoff distance was 140 m, which accounted for 4% of the total runway length. The liftoff speed was 80 knots. The local weather at the time of departure was 7°C with a 10 knot wind coming from 219°, resulting in a crosswind of 5 knots and a headwind of 8 knots.
The enroute climb began 2 miles south of Kelsterbach in Hessen, Germany. The aircraft climbed from 1,173 ft above sea level to 1,387 ft, gaining an altitude of 214 ft in 1 minute and covering a distance of 1 nautical mile.
After reaching the cruise altitude, the enroute level cruise commenced 1 mile northeast of Raunheim, lasting 2 minutes and covering a distance of 4 nm.
The landing took place on runway 18 at EDFB Reichelsheim Airfield, which had a runway length of 1,230 m. The aircraft approached the runway with a height of 80 ft above ground level and a speed of 78 knots at the threshold. The touchdown occurred 443 m from the threshold at a speed of 61 knots, with a Vertical Speed Indicator (VSI) reading of -334 ft/min. The local weather at the time of landing was 6°C with a 9 knot wind coming from 251°, resulting in a crosswind of 9 knots and a headwind of 3 knots. The total landing distance was 859 m, which accounted for 70% of the runway length.
Overall, the flight covered a distance of 29 nm, took 19 minutes to complete, and consumed 7 kg of fuel.
First and foremost, it is important to acknowledge that landing an aircraft is a challenging task that requires a high level of skill and precision. It is commendable that the aircraft was able to land safely despite the issues encountered during the landing score evaluation.
In reviewing the specific areas of concern during the approach phase, it is clear that there was room for improvement in the descent path, heading alignment, and speed control. It is crucial for pilots to maintain a smooth descent path within the glideslope limits, align the aircraft with the runway heading, and manage the speed appropriately to ensure a successful landing.
Moving on to the landing phase, there were significant issues with the threshold height, landing flare, heading, and bank angle stability. These factors are critical in ensuring a smooth touchdown and rollout on the runway. It is essential for pilots to have a clear understanding of the aircraft's position, attitude, and speed during the final approach and landing phases to achieve a successful touchdown.
In the touchdown phase, the hard touchdown rate, excessive speed, and touchdown distance inside the designated zone are indicators of a less than ideal landing. Proper flare technique, speed management, and precise touchdown point are essential for a safe and smooth landing.
Additionally, the runway alignment during the rollout phase being off by 10.4 meters from the centerline is a clear indication of the need for improved lateral control during the landing phase.
Overall, while the landing score of 70.4% indicates room for improvement, it is important to view this evaluation as a learning opportunity. By identifying and addressing the specific areas of concern highlighted in the analysis, pilots can work towards improving their landing techniques and achieving higher scores in future evaluations. Continued practice, feedback, and self-assessment are key to mastering the art of landing an aircraft with precision and skill.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values