Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Work on the flare
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 · 20 stages, 18 scored
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 1,686 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,686 m of the 2,590 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 700 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Boeing 737-900 began with a 5-minute taxi from the parking area to the runway at KRDU Raleigh Durham International Airport. The departure roll on runway 05L covered 2,105 meters, 69% of the total runway length, with a liftoff speed of 177 knots. The local weather at the time of departure was 5°C with no wind, providing ideal conditions for takeoff.
The enroute climb started 1 mile northeast of KRDU, climbing from 1,425 feet above sea level to 29,699 feet, covering a distance of 126 nautical miles in 17 minutes. The level cruise phase of the flight began 8 miles southeast of West Jefferson, lasting 23 minutes and covering 634 nautical miles.
Another enroute climb commenced 6 miles northwest of Tripoli, ascending from 29,543 feet to 31,553 feet in just 2 minutes, covering 74 nautical miles. The subsequent level cruise phase began 2 miles south of Rake Airport and lasted 37 minutes, covering 1,111 nautical miles.
The descent portion of the flight started 5 miles southeast of Chelan Falls, descending from 32,367 feet to 1,694 feet over 101 nautical miles in 23 minutes. The final approach to runway 16R at KSEA Seattle-Tacoma International Airport came from the north at 4 nautical miles and 1,265 feet above ground level.
The landing on runway 16R at KSEA was successful, with the touchdown point occurring 289 meters beyond the designated zone. The touchdown speed was slightly fast at 141 knots, with a very hard touchdown rate of -514 feet per minute. Despite this, the runway touchdown alignment was very good. The total landing distance was 1,611 meters, 62% of the runway length, with a perfect runway rollout alignment.
After landing, a 4-minute taxi from the runway back to the parking area completed the flight. In total, the flight covered 2,056 nautical miles over 113 minutes, using 16,238 kilograms of fuel.
Overall, this aircraft landing had a score of 91.8%, which is a solid result but there are some areas that can be improved upon in future landings.
During the Approach Phase, the glideslope alignment was excellent which indicates good spatial awareness and control of the aircraft. The threshold speed being well above target at 155 knots shows good anticipation and adjustment to ensure a safe landing. These are positive aspects that contributed to the overall score.
Moving onto the Landing Phase, the threshold height was good, suggesting good control and descent rate management. However, the landing flare was very poor, which likely contributed to the touchdown being harder than desired. This is an area to focus on improving for smoother landings in the future.
In the Touchdown Phase, the touchdown rate was very hard at -514 ft/m, indicating a rough landing. The touchdown speed of 141 knots was a little fast, which could have contributed to the hard landing. Additionally, landing 289 meters beyond the touchdown zone suggests a need for better judgment and adjustment during the approach to ensure landing within the designated area. Despite these issues, the runway touchdown alignment was very good, showcasing good spatial orientation skills.
In conclusion, while this aircraft landing had some strong points such as glideslope alignment and threshold speed, there are areas such as the landing flare, touchdown rate, speed, and point that can be improved upon for better landings in the future. By focusing on these specific areas, pilots can work towards achieving smoother, safer landings with higher scores in their performance evaluations. Keep up the good work and continue to strive for improvement in all aspects of aircraft operations.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values