Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Departure
Bring the nose up a little sooner and let the aircraft fly off at 55 kt rather than holding it on the runway.
What happened: You lifted off fast at 94 kt, 39 kt above the target of 55 kt, and lifting off fast like this usually carries extra g into the initial climb.
Watch for: Airspeed indicator: 55 kt at liftoff
Arrival
Reduce power earlier on final so threshold speed settles at 55 kt instead of carrying it into the flare.
What happened: You crossed the threshold at 112 kt, well above the 55 kt target speed, and that excess speed was still showing at touchdown. Crossing the threshold fast usually carries straight through to a fast touchdown.
Watch for: Airspeed indicator against 55 kt on short final.
Ground effect becomes significant below about one wingspan of height. A Cessna 172, with a 36 ft span, enters ground effect at flare height - the float it feels in the hold-off is ground effect arriving on cue. An A320, with a span around 117 ft, has been in ground effect since before the threshold and there is no sudden cushion to feel, only a gradual reduction in induced drag that lengthens any float you allow.
Read more in Flare TimingStart to finish · 16 stages, 14 in the score
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 for a circuit: seven checks where the approach path is 500 ft above the runway. The 1,000 ft gate is an instrument-approach check and does not apply.
At the 500 ft gate: no landing flap set.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 747 m of the approach.
Plan view — the full 747 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 304 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
At LRPW Gheorghe Valentin Bibescu, a Pitts aircraft initiated its departure roll on runway 26, covering a distance of 497 meters, which accounted for 66% of the available runway length. The aircraft lifted off at a speed of 94 knots, taking advantage of the favorable local weather conditions, with a temperature of 16°C and a gentle headwind of 2 knots from a direction of 270°.
As the aircraft entered the left-hand traffic pattern, it demonstrated a swift and precise turn, completing the maneuver in less than 1 nautical mile in 91 seconds. The subsequent downwind turn, which covered a distance of 4 nautical miles, was executed at an angle of 45 degrees to the runway, with a deviation of 7.2°. The aircraft then proceeded to the final approach, aligning itself with runway 08 from the southwest, at a heading of 56.0° and an altitude of 1,214 feet above ground level.
Upon landing, the aircraft touched down at a speed of 104 knots, which was excessively fast, and at a point that utilized more than 75% of the available runway length. The touchdown rate was firm, at -361 feet per minute, and the runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned from the centerline by 19.8 meters. The total landing distance covered 1,316 meters, which was 176% of the runway length, and the runway rollout alignment was excessively misaligned by 85.6 meters from the centerline. The aircraft consumed 2 kilograms of fuel during the flight, which covered a total distance of 7 nautical miles, taking approximately 5 minutes to complete.
The final approach to runway 08 at LRPW Gheorghe Valentin Bibescu from the south west was initiated at 3 nm and 1,214 ft agl, with a heading of 56.0°. The approach quality was satisfactory, with a good threshold height achieved. However, the threshold speed was excessively high at 112 kt, indicating a potential loss of control during the landing phase.
The aircraft touched down at a speed of 104 kt, which was also excessively fast, resulting in a firm touchdown rate of -361 fpm. The touchdown point was located at a significant distance from the available runway, using more than 75% of the 747 m runway length. Furthermore, the runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 19.8 m from the centreline. The local weather conditions, with a temperature of 16 °C and a gentle tailwind of 2 kt, did not significantly impact the landing performance.
The total landing distance of 1,316 m was 176% of the available runway, indicating a suboptimal landing performance. The runway rollout alignment was also excessively misaligned by 85.6 m from the centreline, further contributing to the overall score of 56.0%. Overall, the landing performance was below expectations, with several key performance indicators exceeding acceptable limits.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values