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 · 18 stages, 16 scored
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 2,447 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 316 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with the Airbus A320 taxiing from the parking area to the runway at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, taking 13 minutes and covering a distance of 2 nautical miles. The departure roll took place on runway 18L, with a takeoff distance of 1,427 meters, which was 51% of the runway length. The liftoff speed was 154 knots, and the local weather conditions at the time were a temperature of 10°C, with a wind speed of 16 knots from a direction of 180°.
The crosswind component was minimal, at 1 knot, while the headwind component was 15 knots. As the aircraft took off, it began its enroute climb, starting 1 mile east of Aalsmeerderbrug in the Netherlands. The climb was from an initial altitude of 1,009 feet above sea level to a maximum altitude of 35,318 feet, an increase of 34,309 feet in 24 minutes, covering a distance of 155 nautical miles.
The enroute level cruise phase began overhead Siershahn in Germany and lasted for 30 minutes, during which the aircraft covered a distance of 201 nautical miles. The descent phase started 1 mile south of Zug in Switzerland and lasted for 24 minutes, during which the aircraft descended from 35,791 feet to 1,677 feet, a decrease of 34,114 feet, covering a distance of 103 nautical miles.
The final approach to runway 18 at Milano Linate Airport was from the north, with a heading of 176.0°, at an altitude of 1,321 feet above ground level, and a distance of 4 nautical miles from the runway threshold. The landing took place on a runway with a length of 2,447 meters, and the threshold height was good. The threshold speed was also good at 140 knots, but the touchdown speed was a little fast at 138 knots.
The touchdown distance was good at 314 meters, but the touchdown rate was hard at -409 feet per minute. The runway touchdown position was excessively misaligned by 39.3 meters from the centerline. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were a temperature of 7°C, with a wind speed of 2 knots from a direction of 123°. The crosswind component was minimal, at 2 knots, while the headwind component was 1 knot.
The total landing distance was 1,164 meters, which was 48% of the runway length. The runway rollout alignment was significantly misaligned by 42.5 meters from the centerline. The taxiing to the parking area from the runway took 6 minutes and covered a distance of less than 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 468 nautical miles, taking a total of 95 minutes, and the aircraft used 3,724 kilograms of fuel during the flight.
The Airbus A320 aircraft successfully landed at LIML Milano Linate Airport, but with some notable areas for improvement. The final approach to runway 18 was initiated from the north, heading 176.0° at a distance of 4 nautical miles and an altitude of 1,321 feet above ground level. The aircraft maintained a good threshold height, and the threshold speed of 140 knots was also satisfactory.
However, the touchdown speed of 138 knots was slightly faster than ideal, which may have contributed to a hard touchdown rate of -409 feet per minute. The touchdown distance of 314 meters was within acceptable limits, but the runway touchdown position was excessively misaligned by 39.3 meters from the centreline. This misalignment could have been caused by factors such as crosswind or pilot error.
The local weather conditions at the time of landing were relatively calm, with a temperature of 7°C and a wind speed of 2 knots from 123°. The crosswind component was minimal at 2 knots, while the headwind component was 1 knot. These conditions suggest that the aircraft was not significantly affected by wind during the landing.
The total landing distance of 1,164 meters was 48% of the runway length, which is within acceptable limits. However, the runway rollout alignment was significantly misaligned by 42.5 meters from the centreline, indicating that the aircraft may have deviated from the intended path during the rollout phase. This misalignment could have been caused by factors such as pilot error or a failure to maintain control of the aircraft during the rollout.
Overall, while the landing was successful, there are areas for improvement, particularly in terms of touchdown speed, touchdown rate, and runway alignment. These issues can be addressed through further training and practice to ensure that the aircraft lands safely and efficiently.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values