Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Shorten the long landing
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 · 22 stages, 20 scored
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
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 1,601 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,601 m of the 2,030 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 1,045 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the TBM 850 began with a 12-minute taxi from the parking area to the runway at EGJB Guernsey Airport, covering less than 1 nm. The departure roll was from runway 27, with a takeoff distance of 669 m (46% of the runway). The liftoff speed was 102 kn. Local weather at the time indicated a temperature of 16 °C, with a wind speed of 1 kn at 269 °, resulting in 0 kn crosswind and 1 kn headwind during takeoff.
The enroute climb started 2 miles west of EGJB Guernsey Airport, climbing from 1,130 ft asl to 6,117 ft asl, an increase of 4,987 ft in 3 minutes and covering 8 nm. The enroute descent began 9 miles northwest of the airport, descending from 6,125 ft asl to 4,074 ft asl, a decrease of 2,051 ft in 2 minutes and covering 8 nm.
Another enroute climb started 18 miles northwest of the airport, climbing from 4,406 ft asl to 10,005 ft asl, an increase of 5,600 ft in 4 minutes and covering 15 nm. This was followed by a level cruise that started 31 miles southeast of Stokenham and lasted for 4 minutes, covering 18 nm.
The second descent of the flight began 13 miles southeast of Stokenham, descending from 9,982 ft asl to 2,997 ft asl, a decrease of 6,986 ft in 6 minutes and covering 27 nm. Another level cruise commenced 1 mile north of Dawlish and lasted 3 minutes, covering 10 nm.
The landing occurred on runway 08 at EGTE Exeter International Airport, with a runway length of 2,030 m. The height at the threshold was 69 ft agl, with a speed of 87 kn. The touchdown was 1,045 m from the threshold with a speed of 71 kn and VSI of -67 ft/m. The total landing distance was 1,500 m, 74% of the runway, with local weather indicating a temperature of 16 °C, a wind speed of 1 kn at 270 °, resulting in 0 kn crosswind and 1 kn tailwind during landing.
Finally, taxiing from the runway to the parking area took 2 minutes and covered less than 1 nm. The total flight distance was 98 nm, taking 72 minutes and using 142 kg of fuel.
Overall, the aircraft landing score of 84.6% indicates a fairly successful landing, with some areas that could use improvement.
During the Approach Phase, the good glideslope alignment suggests that the pilot was able to maintain the desired descent path towards the runway, which is a positive aspect of the landing.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, it is noted that the threshold height was above the target, indicating that the aircraft was still too high above the runway at the point of touchdown. Additionally, the poor landing flare, heading, and bank angle stability during landing suggest that the pilot may have had difficulty in properly aligning the aircraft with the runway and executing a smooth touchdown. These aspects could be improved through better control and coordination during the final moments of the landing.
In the Touchdown Phase, the excellent touchdown rate and on-target speed are commendable, demonstrating good control over the aircraft during the critical moment of landing. However, the very long touchdown point and the runway touchdown position 6.6 meters from the centerline suggest that there may have been a slight deviation from the ideal landing path, leading to a less optimal use of available runway space.
Finally, the Rollout Phase shows that the runway alignment was 7.9 meters from the centerline, indicating that there was some lateral deviation during the rollout after touchdown. This could be improved by maintaining better control over the aircraft and ensuring proper alignment with the centerline during the rollout phase.
In conclusion, while the landing score of 84.6% is indicative of a successful landing, there are specific areas such as threshold height, landing flare, alignment, and lateral deviation that could be improved to achieve a more precise and efficient landing in the future. By focusing on these areas and practicing proper techniques, the pilot can work towards achieving higher scores and ultimately improving their overall landing performance.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values