Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Departure
Apply small rudder corrections against a point at the far end of the runway to hold the centreline during the roll.
What happened: The aircraft tracked 11 m off the runway centreline during the ground roll, and flights with this pattern usually carry extra bank, around 2.3°, into the first climb.
Watch for: Heading indicator: wings level, tracking the runway centreline
Arrival
Apply steady, continuous back pressure through the flare to arrest the sink smoothly and hold the normal profile, rather than letting it drift.
What happened: The flare did not hold its target profile, with the sink most arrested at 2.7 ft, and this flight then touched down at 259 fpm of sink - a firm arrival. An unsettled flare profile like this usually carries through to a firmer touchdown.
Watch for: Vertical speed indicator: a smooth, steadily decreasing sink rate through the flare to touchdown.
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 · 16 stages, 15 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.
Two stabilised approach gates, each with seven checks, where the approach path is 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 1,817 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,817 m of the 3,002 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 667 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with the departure roll from runway 25 at EGGW London Luton Airport. The Airbus A320 took off after a takeoff distance of 1,373 meters, which was 66% of the runway length. The liftoff speed was 161 knots. At the time of departure, the local weather conditions were a temperature of 15°C, with a wind speed of 22 knots from a direction of 180°. This resulted in a crosswind of 21 knots and a headwind of 6 knots.
As the aircraft climbed, it started its enroute climb overhead Luton, England, and continued to ascend to a maximum altitude of 34,391 feet above sea level. The climb was completed in 20 minutes, covering a distance of 102 nautical miles and an increase in altitude of 33,031 feet. Following the climb, the aircraft entered a level cruise, which started 29 miles north of Etretat, France. This cruise phase lasted for 93 minutes and covered a distance of 630 nautical miles.
The enroute descent began 1 mile south-east of Serra, Spain, and lasted for 22 minutes. During this phase, the aircraft descended from a maximum altitude of 35,093 feet to 1,918 feet above sea level, covering a distance of 113 nautical miles. The descent was followed by a final approach to runway 23 at LEMI Región de Murcia International Airport, which was approached from the north-east with a heading of 226.0°.
The landing was completed on runway 23, which had a length of 3,002 meters. The threshold height at 72 feet above ground level was well above the target, and the threshold speed was good at 139 knots. However, the touchdown point was 253 meters beyond the touchdown zone, and the touchdown speed was a little fast at 131 knots. The touchdown rate was fair at -276 feet per minute. The runway touchdown position was slightly misaligned by 5.7 meters from the centreline.
The total landing distance was 1,738 meters, which was 58% of the runway length. The runway rollout alignment was also slightly misaligned by 10.4 meters from the centreline. After landing, the aircraft taxied to the parking area from the runway, taking 2 minutes and covering less than 1 nautical mile.
The total flight distance was 851 nautical miles, and the flight duration was 136 minutes. The aircraft used a total of 5,332 kilograms of fuel during the flight. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were a temperature of 20°C, with a wind speed of 5 knots from a direction of 140°. This resulted in a crosswind of 5 knots and a headwind of 0 knots.
The Airbus A320 successfully landed at LEMI Región de Murcia International Airport, with a score of 86.2%. The aircraft approached the runway from the north east, heading 226.0° at a distance of 4 nautical miles and an altitude of 1,277 feet above ground level (agl). The final approach was made to runway 23, which has a length of 3,002 meters.
Upon landing, the threshold height was found to be well above the target, indicating that the aircraft touched down at a higher altitude than desired. However, the threshold speed was good, at 139 knots, which suggests that the pilot maintained a suitable speed during the approach. The touchdown point was 253 meters beyond the touchdown zone, which may indicate a slight over-shooting of the intended landing spot.
The touchdown speed of 131 knots was a little fast, which could have contributed to the over-shooting of the touchdown zone. The touchdown rate of -276 feet per minute (fpm) was fair, indicating that the aircraft touched down at a reasonable rate. However, the runway touchdown position was slightly misaligned by 5.7 meters from the centerline, which may have affected the aircraft's stability during the landing.
The local weather conditions at the time of the landing were favorable, with a temperature of 20°C and a wind speed of 5 knots at 140°. The crosswind component was 5 knots, while the headwind component was zero. These conditions suggest that the pilot had to contend with a slight crosswind, but not a significant headwind.
The total landing distance was 1,738 meters, which is 58% of the runway length. This indicates that the aircraft took a relatively long time to come to a stop after touchdown. The runway rollout alignment was also slightly misaligned by 10.4 meters from the centerline, which may have contributed to the long landing distance.
Overall, while the landing was not perfect, the pilot demonstrated good control and handling of the aircraft, and the score of 86.2% suggests that the landing was satisfactory. However, there is room for improvement in terms of touchdown speed, touchdown point, and runway rollout alignment.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values