Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Hold the approach angle
Preparing for a stable approach will give you time to decide on whether to attempt the landing or going around. Too much altitude with a high sink rate will result in carrying too much speed onto the runway. Configuring flaps and the gear late also won't help the speed decay.
Read more in The Stabilised ApproachStart to finish · 21 stages, 19 scored
Events
Events
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 5,000 ft of the approach.
Plan view — the first 5,000 ft of the 6,470 ft runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 1,213 ft touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Cessna CJ4 Citation began with a 9-minute taxi from the parking area to the runway at PANC Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. The departure roll took place on runway 07R, with a takeoff distance of 1,785 ft, which represented 14% of the total runway length. The liftoff speed was 129 kn. The local weather at the time of departure was 33 °F with a 6 kn wind coming from 69 °, resulting in a 2 kn crosswind and a 6 kn headwind.
The enroute climb started shortly after departing from PANC, climbing from 1,110 ft asl to 19,559 ft asl in 9 minutes, covering a distance of 30 nm. The enroute level cruise began 6 miles northeast of AQY Girdwood-Alyeska Airport and lasted 4 minutes, covering 26 nm. The subsequent descent commenced 11 miles northwest of PYL Perry Island Seaplane Base, descending from 19,615 ft asl to 10,009 ft asl in 4 minutes, covering 25 nm. Another brief level cruise segment started 16 miles east of PYL Perry Island Seaplane Base and lasted 4 minutes, covering 14 nm. The final descent of the journey began 10 miles southwest of PAKA Tatitlek, descending from 9,935 ft asl to 3,379 ft asl in 6 minutes, covering 21 nm.
The landing occurred on runway 06 at PAVD Valdez Pioneer Field, with a runway length of 6,470 ft. The aircraft approached the runway at a height of 76 ft agl, with a speed of 113 kn at the threshold. The touchdown point was 1,161 ft from the threshold, with a touchdown speed of 104 kn and a VSI of -465 ft/m. The local weather at the time of landing was 41 °F with no wind. The total landing distance was 2,650 ft, representing 41% of the runway length.
After landing, a 2-minute taxi from the runway to the parking area covered less than 1 nm. The total flight distance was 132 nm, with a total flight time of 50 minutes and fuel usage of 689 lbs.
Overall, the aircraft landing score of 79.0% indicates there are several areas for improvement in the approach, landing, touchdown, and rollout phases of the landing process.
Starting with the approach phase, it is crucial for the descent path to be within the glideslope limit to ensure a stable and safe approach. By overshooting the glideslope, the aircraft risks coming in too high or too low, leading to a less than optimal landing. Improving the descent path will help ensure a smoother landing.
Moving on to the landing phase, the fact that the threshold height was well above the target suggests that the aircraft was not properly aligned with the runway and may have come in at too high of an angle. Additionally, a very poor landing flare indicates that the pilot may not have properly leveled off the aircraft before touchdown, resulting in a harder landing than necessary.
In the touchdown phase, several key areas need to be addressed. Firstly, the touchdown rate was very hard, which can place unnecessary stress on the aircraft landing gear and tires. It is important for the touchdown to be smooth to prevent damage and ensure passenger comfort. Furthermore, having the speed a little above target can impact the aircraft's ability to stop efficiently after touchdown. Additionally, the fact that the touchdown distance was inside the touchdown zone suggests that the pilot may have misjudged the approach, leading to a less than ideal touchdown position.
Finally, in the rollout phase, it is concerning that the runway alignment was 51 ft from the centerline. Proper alignment is crucial for a safe landing and can impact the aircraft's ability to taxi off the runway smoothly.
Overall, while the landing score of 79.0% is below ideal, it provides valuable feedback for areas of improvement in the landing process. By addressing the issues identified in the approach, landing, touchdown, and rollout phases, pilots can work towards achieving a higher landing score and ensuring safer landings in the future. Remember, practice makes perfect and with dedication and attention to detail, improvements can be made.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values