Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Departure
Apply small rudder corrections to track the centreline against a point at the far end of the runway.
What happened: The takeoff roll drifted 12 m off the centreline, and a heading variation of 1.1° usually follows into the initial climb.
Watch for: Heading indicator: wings-level runway heading held through the climb
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 · 14 stages, 12 scored
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: seven checks where the approach path is 300 ft above the runway. The 1,000 ft gate was not assessed, because the approach did not join final that far out.
At the 300 ft gate: sink rate above what the glideslope needed, off the runway's 3° glideslope and off the centreline.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 2,312 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 817 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with a departure roll from runway 33 at LOWS Salzburg Airport. The aircraft, a Cessna C172, accelerated down the runway and lifted off at a speed of 62 kt, covering a distance of 141 m, which was 6% of the runway length. The local weather conditions at the time of takeoff were characterized by a temperature of 12 °C.
As the aircraft climbed away from the airport, it began to ascend from an initial altitude of 1,796 ft above sea level to 2,700 ft, an increase of 903 ft over a distance of 2 nm in just 2 minutes. This climb phase was followed by a descent from 2,704 ft to 1,874 ft, a decrease of 830 ft over the same distance and time period. The aircraft then leveled off for a short period of 2 minutes, covering 2 nm, before beginning another climb phase from 1,738 ft to 2,341 ft, an increase of 603 ft over 2 nm in 2 minutes.
The aircraft then entered a level cruise phase, lasting 4 minutes, while flying over Bergheim, a nearby town in Salzburg, Austria. This cruise phase covered a distance of 2 nm. The final approach to runway 33 at LOWS Salzburg Airport was initiated from the south, with the aircraft flying at a heading of 343.0 ° and an altitude of 54 ft above ground level.
The landing on runway 33 was notable for several factors. The threshold height at 79 ft above ground level was well above the target, and the threshold speed was excessively high at 82 kt. The touchdown point was 374 m beyond the touchdown zone, and the touchdown speed was good at 50 kt. The touchdown rate was also good at -187 fpm. However, the runway touchdown position was misaligned by 14.9 m from the centreline.
The total flight distance was 11 nm, and the flight duration was 12 minutes. The aircraft used 5 kg of fuel during the flight. The local weather conditions remained consistent throughout the flight, with a temperature of 12 °C.
The Cessna C172 aircraft has successfully landed at LOWS Salzburg Airport, but with some notable areas for improvement. The final approach to runway 33 was initiated from the south, with the aircraft heading 343.0° at 0 nm and 54 ft above ground level (agl). This suggests a stable and controlled descent into the airport.
However, upon closer inspection, it becomes apparent that the aircraft's performance during the landing was not entirely satisfactory. The threshold height at 79 ft agl was significantly above the target, indicating that the aircraft may have been descending too slowly or not aggressively enough. This could be attributed to a variety of factors, including the pilot's decision to maintain a slower rate of descent or the aircraft's performance characteristics.
Furthermore, the threshold speed of 82 kt was excessively high, suggesting that the pilot may have been experiencing difficulty in slowing the aircraft down to a safe landing speed. This could be due to a range of factors, including the aircraft's airspeed, the pilot's control inputs, or the wind conditions.
Despite these issues, the touchdown point was 374 m beyond the touchdown zone, which is a significant deviation from the intended landing spot. This could be attributed to a combination of factors, including the pilot's misjudgment of the aircraft's position, the aircraft's performance characteristics, or the wind conditions.
On a more positive note, the touchdown speed of 50 kt was good, indicating that the pilot was able to bring the aircraft down to a safe speed before touching down. Additionally, the touchdown rate of -187 fpm was also good, suggesting that the pilot was able to control the aircraft's descent and avoid a hard landing.
Finally, the runway touchdown position was misaligned by 14.9 m from the centreline, which could be attributed to a range of factors, including the pilot's misjudgment of the aircraft's position, the aircraft's performance characteristics, or the wind conditions. Overall, while the landing was successful, there are several areas for improvement that the pilot and aircraft should focus on to enhance their performance and safety.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values