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, 16 scored
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Two stabilised approach gates, each with five checks, where the approach path is 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway.
At the 1,000 ft gate: off the centreline.
At the 500 ft gate: 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 2,896 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 657 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with taxiing from the parking area to the runway at UBBB Heydar Aliyev International Airport, which took 14 minutes and covered a distance of 4 nautical miles. The aircraft, an Airbus A320, then departed from runway 35 and took off with a takeoff distance of 1,293 meters, which was 39% of the runway length. The liftoff speed was 160 knots.
As the aircraft climbed out of the airport, it encountered local weather conditions of 6°C temperature and winds of 17 knots at 19°. The crosswind was 6 knots, and the headwind was 16 knots. The enroute climb started 1 mile northeast of the airport and reached an altitude of 30,033 feet above sea level, an increase of 29,024 feet in 11 minutes, covering a distance of 51 nautical miles.
The enroute level cruise began 9 miles south of Altiagac and lasted 13 minutes, covering a distance of 88 nautical miles. The aircraft then started its descent 3 miles northwest of Sheki, descending from 30,554 feet to 4,027 feet above sea level, a decrease of 26,527 feet in 11 minutes, covering a distance of 64 nautical miles. The enroute level cruise started again 11 miles southwest of Sighnaghi and lasted 11 minutes, covering a distance of 31 nautical miles.
The final approach to runway 31L at UGGG Lochini was made from the southeast, heading 317.0° at 4 nautical miles and 1,172 feet above ground level. The landing was made on runway 31L, which had a length of 2,896 meters. The threshold height was good, and the threshold speed was also good at 133 knots. The touchdown point was 474 meters beyond the touchdown zone, with a touchdown speed of 121 knots and a firm touchdown rate of -303 feet per minute.
The runway touchdown position was misaligned by 7.8 meters from the centerline, but the runway rollout alignment was very good. The total landing distance was 1,277 meters, which was 44% of the runway length. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were 3°C temperature. The total flight distance was 245 nautical miles, taking 56 minutes, and the aircraft used 4,205 kilograms of fuel.
The Airbus A320 successfully landed on runway 31L at UGGG Lochini, achieving a score of 90.3%. The aircraft approached the runway from the south east, heading 317.0° at a distance of 4 nautical miles and an altitude of 1,172 feet above ground level (agl). The pilot maintained a good threshold height, which is a crucial aspect of a safe landing.
Upon touchdown, the aircraft's speed was recorded at 133 knots, which is within the acceptable threshold speed range. The touchdown point was located 474 meters beyond the designated touchdown zone, indicating a slight deviation from the intended landing spot. However, the touchdown speed of 121 knots was considered good, and the touchdown rate of -303 feet per minute (fpm) was firm, suggesting a controlled descent.
One notable aspect of the landing was the runway touchdown position, which was misaligned by 7.8 meters from the centerline. This deviation may have been due to various factors, including wind conditions or pilot error. Nevertheless, the runway rollout alignment was very good, indicating that the aircraft maintained its stability and control during the post-landing phase.
The local weather conditions at the time of the landing were characterized by a temperature of 3°C, which may have affected the aircraft's performance. However, the pilot's skills and the aircraft's capabilities allowed for a successful landing, despite the challenging conditions. Overall, the landing was considered good, with a score of 90.3%, indicating a high level of proficiency and control.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values