Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Hold the approach angle
Preparing for a stable approach will give you time to decide on whether to attempt the landing or going around. Too much altitude with a high sink rate will result in carrying too much speed onto the runway. Configuring flaps and the gear late also won't help the speed decay.
Read more in The Stabilised ApproachStart to finish · 18 stages, 16 scored
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.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 500 m of the approach.
Plan view — the full 500 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 291 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with taxiing from the parking area to the runway, which took 9 minutes and covered a distance of 2 nautical miles. The aircraft, a Vision Jet, then departed from runway 26L at EDDM Munich Airport. The takeoff distance was 501 meters, which accounted for 13% of the runway. The liftoff speed was 89 knots.
The local weather conditions at the time of departure were characterized by a temperature of 18 degrees Celsius and a wind speed of 6 knots from a direction of 10 degrees. This resulted in a crosswind of 6 knots and a tailwind of 2 knots. The aircraft then began its enroute climb, starting 1 mile northeast of Hallbergmoos, Bavaria, Germany. The climb took place from an altitude of 2,466 feet above sea level to 8,060 feet above sea level, an increase of 5,594 feet in just 4 minutes, covering a distance of 8 nautical miles.
Following the enroute climb, the aircraft entered a level cruise phase, which started 1 mile northwest of Pliening, Bavaria, Germany. This phase lasted for 30 minutes and covered a distance of 134 nautical miles. The aircraft then began its enroute descent, starting 5 miles south of Lunz am See, Niederoesterreich, Austria. The descent took place from an altitude of 8,030 feet above sea level to 4,249 feet above sea level, a decrease of 3,781 feet in 5 minutes, covering a distance of 12 nautical miles.
The final approach to runway 33 at LOGM Mariazell Airfield was made from the southeast, heading 326.0 degrees at a distance of 4 nautical miles and an altitude of 1,439 feet above ground level. The landing took place on runway 33, which had a length of 500 meters. The threshold height was good, but the threshold speed was excessively high at 96 knots. The touchdown point was very long, using more than 50% of the available runway. The touchdown speed was also too fast at 84 knots, and the touchdown rate was firm at -353 feet per minute. The runway touchdown position was slightly misaligned by 7.3 meters from the centerline.
The local weather conditions at the time of landing were characterized by a temperature of 21 degrees Celsius and a wind speed of 2 knots from a direction of 180 degrees. This resulted in a crosswind of 1 knot and a tailwind of 2 knots. The total landing distance was 465 meters, which accounted for 93% of the runway. The runway rollout alignment was very good. Taxiing to the parking area from the runway took less than 1 minute and covered a distance of less than 1 nautical mile.
The total flight distance was 161 nautical miles, and the flight duration was 56 minutes. The aircraft used 235 kilograms of fuel during the flight.
The Vision Jet aircraft successfully landed at LOGM Mariazell Airfield, but the landing was not without its issues. The pilot's final approach to runway 33 from the south east was executed at a heading of 326.0°, 4 nautical miles away, and at an altitude of 1,439 feet above ground level (agl). The aircraft touched down on the runway, but the landing was characterized by a number of problems.
One of the main issues was the excessively high threshold speed of 96 kt, which is higher than the recommended speed for landing. This resulted in a touchdown point that was very long, using more than 50% of the available runway. The touchdown speed of 84 kt was also too fast, indicating that the pilot may have been unable to slow the aircraft down sufficiently before touchdown. The firm touchdown rate of -353 fpm suggests that the aircraft may have been touching down with a significant amount of energy, which can be a safety concern.
In addition to the issues with speed and touchdown point, the runway touchdown position was slightly misaligned by 7.3 meters from the centerline. This may have been due to a combination of factors, including wind and pilot error. The local weather conditions at the time of the landing were relatively calm, with a temperature of 21°C and a wind of 2 kt at 180°. However, the crosswind was 1 kt, and the tailwind was 2 kt, which may have contributed to the misalignment.
Despite the issues with the landing, the pilot was able to bring the aircraft to a stop safely, with a total landing distance of 465 meters, which is 93% of the available runway. The runway rollout alignment was very good, indicating that the pilot was able to maintain control of the aircraft during the rollout phase.
Overall, the landing was not a perfect one, but it was still a safe and successful operation. The pilot will need to work on improving their skills and techniques to achieve a more precise and controlled landing.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values