Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Shorten the long landing
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 · 26 stages, 25 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 8,470 ft of the approach.
Plan view — the first 8,470 ft of the 10,998 ft runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 5,438 ft past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Overall, this aircraft landing can be described as having several significant issues throughout each phase.
During the Approach Phase, the aircraft had a poor descent path above the glideslope limit. This indicates that the aircraft was descending too quickly and not following the correct glide path to the runway. However, the heading alignment and speed were on target, which shows good aircraft control in terms of direction and speed.
In the Landing Phase, the aircraft had an excessively high threshold height, which could have led to a harder landing than necessary. Additionally, the landing flare was very poor, indicating that the pilot did not properly adjust the aircraft's pitch before touchdown. This could have contributed to the heavy touchdown rate.
In the Touchdown Phase, the aircraft had a heavy touchdown rate and a speed that was above the target. These factors can result in a significant jolt upon landing and put extra stress on the aircraft's landing gear. The touchdown point being 1,197 m beyond the touchdown zone is a significant deviation from the ideal landing point, indicating poor judgment or control from the pilot. The fact that the runway touchdown position was 1.7 m from the centerline and the rollout phase runway alignment was 3.7 m from the centerline shows a lack of precision in aligning the aircraft with the runway.
In conclusion, this aircraft landing had multiple issues throughout each phase, including poor descent path, excessive threshold height, poor landing flare, heavy touchdown rate, and deviations from the intended touchdown zone and centerline alignment. These issues indicate a lack of proper control and judgment from the pilot during the landing process.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values