Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Improve the landing
Not the biggest loss in points — the one thing on this flight a check pilot would raise first, and the guide passage for it.
Even a modest height error carries straight through to the touchdown. Geometry alone says that crossing the threshold 10 feet high on a 3° path moves your touchdown roughly 190 feet further down the runway before the flare adds anything.
Read more in The Stabilised ApproachStart to finish · 18 stages, 16 scored
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Two stabilised approach gates, each with six checks at 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway.
Side view — the last 1,964 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,964 m of the 2,982 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 647 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with the aircraft taxiing from the parking area to the runway at ENSB Svalbard Airport, Longyear. This process took approximately 8 minutes and covered a distance of less than 1 nautical mile. The aircraft then departed from runway 10, with a takeoff distance of 1,183 meters, which accounted for 56% of the runway. The liftoff speed was 179 knots.
The local weather conditions at the time of departure were characterized by a temperature of 2 degrees Celsius, with a wind speed of 31 knots at 119 degrees. This resulted in a crosswind of 8 knots and a headwind of 30 knots. The aircraft then took off and began its enroute climb, which started overhead ENSB Svalbard Airport, Longyear. The climb was from an altitude of 1,041 feet above sea level to 35,001 feet above sea level, an increase of 33,960 feet in 15 minutes, covering a distance of 133 nautical miles.
The enroute level cruise phase of the flight began at a latitude of 76.0918166 and a longitude of 18.5344432, lasting for 32 minutes and covering a distance of 467 nautical miles. The aircraft then started its enroute descent, which began 2 miles north of Enontekioe in Lapland, Finland. The descent was from an altitude of 35,007 feet above sea level to 1,887 feet above sea level, a decrease of 33,120 feet in 16 minutes, covering a distance of 120 nautical miles.
The final approach to runway 21 at EFRO Rovaniemi Airport was from the north-east, with a heading of 217.0 degrees at a distance of 4 nautical miles and an altitude of 1,254 feet above ground level. The landing on runway 21 was successful, with a runway length of 2,982 meters. However, the threshold height was excessively over target, while the threshold speed was good at 132 knots. The touchdown point was 208 meters beyond the touchdown zone, with a touchdown speed of 130 knots, which was good. The touchdown rate was very hard at -569 feet per minute.
The runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 25.8 meters from the centreline, and the runway rollout alignment was also misaligned by 27.6 meters from the centreline. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were characterized by a temperature of 15 degrees Celsius, with a wind speed of 1 knot at 270 degrees. This resulted in a crosswind of 1 knot and a headwind of 1 knot. The total landing distance was 1,860 meters, which accounted for 62% of the runway.
The flight then ended with the aircraft taxiing to the parking area from the runway, which took approximately 1 minute and covered a distance of less than 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 727 nautical miles, taking a total of 79 minutes, and the aircraft used 620 kilograms of fuel during the flight.
The Airbus A320 aircraft successfully landed at EFRO Rovaniemi Airport, but the landing was not without its challenges. The final approach to runway 21 was initiated from the north east, heading 217.0° at a distance of 4 nautical miles and an altitude of 1,254 feet above ground level (agl). The aircraft's approach speed was good, with a threshold speed of 132 knots, which is within the acceptable range.
However, the aircraft's touchdown was not ideal. The threshold height at 121 feet agl was excessively over target, indicating that the aircraft was higher than expected when it reached the runway threshold. This could be due to a variety of factors, including a high approach path angle or a delay in extending the landing gear. Despite this, the touchdown speed of 130 knots was good, indicating that the aircraft was not too fast or too slow when it touched down.
The touchdown point was 208 meters beyond the touchdown zone, which is a significant deviation from the intended landing spot. This could be due to a variety of factors, including a crosswind or a misaligned runway touchdown position. The runway touchdown position was indeed significantly misaligned by 25.8 meters from the centerline, which could have contributed to the deviation from the intended landing spot.
The local weather conditions at the time of the landing were relatively calm, with a temperature of 15°C and a wind speed of 1 knot from 270°. The crosswind and headwind components were both 1 knot, which is relatively minimal. Despite the calm weather, the landing was still challenging, with a very hard touchdown rate of -569 feet per minute (fpm). This is significantly higher than the recommended touchdown rate, which could indicate that the aircraft was not properly configured for landing.
The total landing distance was 1,860 meters, which is 62% of the runway length. This is a relatively long landing distance, indicating that the aircraft took some time to come to a stop after touchdown. The runway rollout alignment was also misaligned by 27.6 meters from the centerline, which could have contributed to the long landing distance.
Overall, while the Airbus A320 aircraft successfully landed at EFRO Rovaniemi Airport, the landing was not without its challenges. The aircraft's touchdown was higher than expected, and the touchdown point was significantly beyond the intended landing spot. The landing distance was also longer than expected, and the runway rollout alignment was misaligned. These issues could be addressed through further training and practice, as well as adjustments to the aircraft's configuration and approach procedures.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values