Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Maintain the centreline
A small uncorrected heading error at 40 knots becomes a metre of offset per second by 100 knots, noticed only at rotation, producing a crabbed liftoff. Root cause is nearly always eyes on the tape instead of the far end of the runway. Small heading changes displace a distant point visibly long before the nearby centreline stripes look wrong.
Read more in Improve Your Take-OffsStart to finish · 23 stages, 21 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 1,863 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,863 m of the 3,984 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 480 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Airbus A320 from Salzburg to Frankfurt/Main was smooth and efficient. The taxi from the parking to the runway took 9 minutes, covering 1 nm. Departure roll from runway 33 at LOWS Salzburg went well, with a takeoff distance of 5,646 ft (74% of the runway) and a liftoff speed of 150 kn. The local weather at the time of departure was favorable, with a temperature of 64 °F and a wind of 5 kn at 170 °, resulting in a crosswind of 1 kn and a tailwind of 4 kn.
The enroute climb started south of Freilassing in Bavaria, Germany, climbing from 2,440 ft to 33,000 ft in 17 minutes and covering 86 nm. The level cruise segment began north east of Gaimersheim in Bavaria, lasting 2 minutes and covering 14 nm. The descent started north east of Pappenheim, decreasing altitude from 33,164 ft to 11,102 ft in 13 minutes and covering 87 nm. Another level cruise segment started south east of Heimbuchenthal for 2 minutes, covering 11 nm.
The descent continued overhead Schaafheim in Hessen, Germany, from 9,816 ft to 4,349 ft in 4 minutes, covering 9 nm. A brief level cruise was then conducted overhead Grosskrotzenburg for 4 minutes and covering 3 nm before the final descent began overhead Hanau am Main, going from 3,868 ft to 2,229 ft in 3 minutes and covering 8 nm.
The landing on runway 25L at EDDF Frankfurt/Main had favorable conditions with a runway length of 13,070 ft. The height at threshold was 53 ft agl, and the speed at threshold was 144 kn. The touchdown was 1,575 ft from the threshold, with a touchdown speed of 136 kn and a VSI of -479 ft/m. The local weather at the time of landing was a temperature of 65 °F, with a wind of 9 kn at 179 °, resulting in a crosswind of 8 kn and a headwind of 3 kn. The total landing distance was 5,879 ft, which was 45% of the runway length.
Overall, the flight covered a distance of 229 nm, taking 163 minutes in total and using 5,495 lbs of fuel. The navigation and performance of the Airbus A320 were efficient throughout the flight, resulting in a successful journey from Salzburg to Frankfurt/Main.
Firstly, congratulations on achieving an aircraft landing score of 87.8%! This is a commendable achievement and reflects a good overall performance during the landing process. Let's break down the analysis of the different phases of the landing:
During the Approach Phase, it is noted that the glideslope alignment was excellent. This indicates a precise descent path towards the runway, which is crucial for a safe and smooth landing. However, there was a slight deviation in speed, with it being slightly above target. It is important to maintain the desired approach speed to ensure a controlled landing.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, we see a mix of strengths and areas for improvement. The good threshold height indicates a well-timed descent towards the runway. However, the landing flare was identified as very poor. The landing flare is the crucial moment where the pilot transitions the aircraft from descent to landing, and a poor execution can result in a hard touchdown.
In the Touchdown Phase, there are several aspects that need attention. The touchdown rate was reported as very hard, suggesting a firm contact with the runway. Additionally, the speed at touchdown was slightly above target, which could have contributed to the hard landing. The touchdown point being 74 m beyond the designated zone indicates the need for better precision in aiming for the touchdown zone.
Furthermore, the runway touchdown position being 5.4 m from the centerline suggests some lateral deviation during the landing. This is an area that can be improved through better alignment and coordination during the touchdown phase.
Lastly, in the Rollout Phase, it was observed that the runway alignment was 18.6 m from the centerline. Maintaining proper alignment during rollout is essential for safe taxiing and exiting the runway.
In conclusion, while there were notable strengths in the landing performance, such as the glideslope alignment and threshold height, there are areas that require attention and improvement, such as the landing flare, touchdown rate, speed control, touchdown point accuracy, and runway alignment. By focusing on these aspects and practicing precision in each phase of the landing, you can further enhance your skills and aim for even higher landing scores in the future. Keep up the good work and continue honing your landing techniques for smoother and safer landings.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values