Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Track the centreline
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
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. They are the approach's score: the checks passed out of the checks that ran.
At the 1,000 ft gate: centreline 8.7° off, against a 1° limit and speed 30 kt FAST on the reference speed of 119 kt.
At the 500 ft gate: centreline 3.0° off, against a 1° limit and speed 113 kt FAST on the reference speed of 119 kt.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 3,594 m of the approach.
Plan view — the full 3,594 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 2,797 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The 2.04 G arrival is the firm side of smooth.
The rest of the report
Departing from runway 17L at LTBA İstanbul Atatürk Airport, the Airbus A320 began its takeoff roll, accelerating to a liftoff speed of 147 kt in 1,134 meters, which was 38% of the available runway length. The local weather conditions were favorable, with a temperature of 16 °C and a negligible wind of 1 kt at 270°.
As the aircraft climbed out of LTBA, it transitioned into a steady enroute climb, reaching an altitude of 7,259 ft asl in just 3 minutes, covering a distance of 12 nm. The aircraft then began a series of enroute climbs and descents, navigating through the Istanbul airspace, with notable climbs from 1,417 ft asl to 4,990 ft asl and from 1,635 ft asl to 4,790 ft asl. The aircraft eventually entered a level cruise phase, lasting 3 minutes, before initiating a final descent towards LTFJ Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen International Airport.
The final approach to runway 06R was initiated from the south west, with a heading of 60.0° at 2 nm and 770 ft agl. However, the landing was not without issues, as the aircraft touched down at a speed of 129 kt, which was fast, and with a touchdown rate of -565 fpm, which was very hard. The touchdown point was also significantly long, using more than 50% of the available runway. The aircraft's runway touchdown position was misaligned by 20.1 m from the centreline, and the runway rollout alignment was excessively misaligned by 209.1 m from the centreline. The total landing distance was 3,388 m, which was 96% of the available runway length. The aircraft used a total of 95 nm of distance and -4,063 kg of fuel during the flight.
The final approach to runway 06R at LTFJ Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen International Airport from the south west was initiated at 2 nm and 770 ft above ground level, heading 60.0°. The approach quality was compromised by an excessively high threshold height of 327 ft agl, exceeding the target by a significant margin. This was further exacerbated by a threshold speed of 165 kt, which was also above the desired level.
The aircraft touched down very far down the runway, utilizing more than 50% of the available length. The touchdown speed of 129 kt was also fast, contributing to a very hard touchdown rate of -565 fpm. Furthermore, the runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 20.1 m from the centreline, indicating a loss of directional control during the landing phase. The local weather conditions, with a temperature of 15 °C and a gentle tailwind of 1 kt, did not appear to have a significant impact on the landing.
The total landing distance of 3,388 m was 96% of the runway length, indicating a lengthy rollout. The runway rollout alignment was also excessively misaligned by 209.1 m from the centreline, further highlighting the challenges faced during the landing phase. Overall, the landing performance was subpar, with a score of 42.9%.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values