Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
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 · 18 stages, 17 scored
Events
Events
Events
Events
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.
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 1,938 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,938 m of the 4,113 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 879 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Overall, this aircraft landing can be considered to be below average in terms of overall performance. The Approach Phase had some positive aspects such as excellent heading alignment and speed being below target, which is beneficial for a smooth landing. However, the descent path was below the glideslope limit, indicating that the aircraft was descending too steeply, which could potentially lead to a hard landing or even a runway overshoot. Additionally, there was a warning to take care not to stall, suggesting that the aircraft may have been flying close to its stall speed during the approach phase.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, the threshold height was slightly too low, which could mean that the aircraft was descending too rapidly just before touchdown. The landing flare was described as very poor, indicating that the pilot did not properly flare the aircraft to gently touchdown on the runway, which could result in a hard landing and potentially damage to the landing gear. Furthermore, landing with a 4 knot tailwind is risky as it can increase the landing distance and make it more difficult to control the aircraft during touchdown and rollout.
In the Touchdown Phase, the touchdown rate was described as perfect, meaning that the aircraft landed smoothly without any excessive vertical speed. The speed was on target, indicating that the aircraft touched down at the desired speed. However, the touchdown distance was long, which could indicate that the aircraft touched down further along the runway than intended. Additionally, the runway alignment was way off, suggesting that the aircraft landed at an angle to the runway instead of straight down the centerline.
Finally, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment was once again noted to be way off, indicating that the aircraft may have had difficulty staying centered on the runway during rollout. This could be due to factors such as crosswinds or poor aircraft handling.
Overall, this aircraft landing had some positive aspects such as good speed control and touchdown rate, but there were significant issues with the descent path, landing flare, tailwind landing, and runway alignment. These factors indicate that the pilot may need to work on their approach and landing techniques to improve their overall performance during landings.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values