Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Improve the takeoff
The rudder input is a changing profile through the roll rather than one that is held. So the demand on your right foot starts large at power application, eases as speed builds and the rudder gains authority, then jumps again at rotation.
Read more in Improve Your Take-OffsStart to finish · 16 stages, 14 scored
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 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 1,996 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 725 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the TBM 850 began with a taxi from the parking area to the runway, which took 8 minutes to cover less than 1 nm. The departure roll was on runway 18 at KLEB Lebanon Municipal Airport, with a takeoff distance of 771 m (49% of the runway length). The liftoff speed was 98 kn, with the local weather indicating a temperature of 16°C and a 1 kn wind at 269° (crosswind: 1 kn, headwind: 0 kn).
The enroute climb started 2 miles east of North Hartland (Vermont, United States), climbing from 1,390 ft asl to 2,267 ft asl, an increase of 877 ft in 1 minute and covering 3 nm. The enroute descent then began 2 miles east of Hartland, descending from 2,272 ft asl to 1,411 ft asl, a decrease of 861 ft in 2 minutes and covering 7 nm.
The landing took place on runway 16 at KHPN Westchester County Airport, with a runway length of 1,996 m. The height at the threshold was 46 ft agl, with a speed at threshold of 89 kn. The touchdown occurred 725 m from the threshold, with a touchdown speed of 73 kn and a VSI of -197 ft/m. The local weather indicated a temperature of 15°C and a 1 kn wind at 270° (crosswind: 1 kn, headwind: 0 kn). The total landing distance was 1,026 m (51% of the runway).
After landing, the taxiing from the runway to the parking area took 1 minute to cover less than 1 nm. The total flight distance was 168 nm, taking 56 minutes and using 171 kg of fuel.
The overall aircraft landing score of 87.3% indicates a solid performance with room for improvement. Let's break down the different phases of the landing to understand where the strengths and weaknesses lie.
During the Approach Phase, the glideslope alignment was noted as good, indicating that the aircraft was descending at an appropriate angle towards the runway. However, the poor heading alignment suggests that there was some difficulty in maintaining the correct direction towards the runway. This is an area that can be improved through better coordination and adjustments during the approach.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, the good threshold height indicates that the aircraft was at the correct altitude as it approached the runway. However, the very poor landing flare suggests that there may have been issues with the descent rate and pitch control just before touchdown. Improving the landing flare technique can lead to smoother touchdowns and better control during this critical phase of the landing.
In the Touchdown Phase, the good touchdown rate is a positive sign, but the speed being slightly above target and touchdown point being beyond the touchdown zone indicate the need for better speed management and touchdown accuracy. Additionally, the runway touchdown position being off-center by 4.0 m highlights the importance of maintaining alignment with the runway centerline for a safe and precise landing.
Lastly, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment being 12.0 m from the centerline suggests that there was some lateral deviation during the rollout after touchdown. This can be improved through better rudder control and steering adjustments to keep the aircraft centered on the runway as it slows down and exits.
Overall, while the landing score is decent at 87.3%, there are clear areas that can be targeted for improvement in future landings. By focusing on better heading alignment during approach, improving landing flare technique, optimizing touchdown speed and accuracy, and maintaining runway alignment during rollout, the pilot can work towards achieving even higher landing scores in the future. Keep up the good work and continue to strive for excellence in every phase of the landing process.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values