Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Maintain the centreline
A small uncorrected heading error at 40 knots becomes a metre of offset per second by 100 knots, noticed only at rotation, producing a crabbed liftoff. Root cause is nearly always eyes on the tape instead of the far end of the runway. Small heading changes displace a distant point visibly long before the nearby centreline stripes look wrong.
Read more in Improve Your Take-OffsStart to finish · 19 stages, 17 scored
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 1,939 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,939 m of the 2,783 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 436 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Boeing 737-800 from LIME (Milan Bergamo Airport) to EPGD (Gdańsk Lech Wałęsa Airport) was a smooth and efficient journey.
The taxiing from the parking area to the runway at LIME took 11 minutes, covering a distance of 2 nm. The departure roll from runway 28 was successful, with a takeoff distance of 1,533 m (61% of the runway), and liftoff speed of 149 kn. The local weather at Milan Bergamo Airport indicated a temperature of 11°C, with no significant winds affecting the takeoff.
The enroute climb began overhead Orio al Serio in Lombardia, Italy. The climb took the aircraft from 1,784 ft asl to 36,968 ft asl, covering 105 nm in just 20 minutes. The enroute level cruise phase started over Tirol, Austria, lasting 50 minutes and covering 383 nm before the descent began over Greater Poland Voivodeship, Poland. The descent from 36,667 ft asl to 2,019 ft asl took 29 minutes and covered 137 nm.
The landing on runway 29 at EPGD was successful, with a runway length of 2,783 m. The height at threshold was 65 ft agl, and the speed at threshold was 138 kn. Touchdown occurred 436 m from the threshold at a speed of 136 kn, with a smooth VSI of -527 ft/m. Despite some crosswind and tailwind conditions, the landing was completed within a total distance of 1,862 m (67% of the runway).
Overall, the flight covered a total distance of 635 nm in 116 minutes, using 4,625 kg of fuel. The taxiing back to the parking area from the runway took 4 minutes, concluding the successful journey on the Boeing 737-800.
First of all, congratulations on achieving an aircraft landing score of 86.5%! While this is a good score, there are a few areas where improvements can be made in order to further enhance your landing performance.
Let's start with the Approach Phase. It seems that the descent path was above the glideslope limit, indicating that the aircraft may have been descending too quickly or too steeply. This can lead to a less stable approach and difficulties in transitioning smoothly to the landing phase. It is important to maintain a stable descent path within the glideslope limits to ensure a safe and controlled approach.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, it is noted that the threshold height was above the target and the landing flare was very poor. The threshold height being above target indicates that the aircraft may have been too high above the runway during the final stages of the approach, which could result in a harder landing and a longer touchdown distance. Additionally, a poor landing flare can lead to a firm touchdown and potentially a bounce upon landing. It is essential to execute a smooth and timely flare to ensure a gentle touchdown.
In the Touchdown Phase, the touchdown rate was heavy, suggesting a firmer than ideal landing. While the speed was on target, it is crucial to aim for a smooth touchdown to reduce stresses on the aircraft structure and enhance passenger comfort. Furthermore, the touchdown distance inside the touchdown zone is positive, indicating good accuracy in touchdown location. However, the runway touchdown position being 7.5 m from the centerline raises concerns about the lateral alignment during touchdown.
A critical issue to address is the fact that the aircraft landed with a 9-knot tailwind. Landing with a tailwind can significantly increase landing distances and reduce controllability, posing a safety risk. It is essential to always land into the wind whenever possible to ensure optimal landing performance.
Lastly, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment was 16.3 m from the centerline. Maintaining proper runway alignment is crucial for a safe and efficient rollout. Deviations from the centerline can impact taxiing operations and should be corrected to ensure safety during ground movements.
In conclusion, while your overall aircraft landing score is commendable, there are specific areas to focus on for improvement. By addressing issues such as maintaining a stable descent path, executing a proper landing flare, avoiding tailwind landings, and ensuring runway alignment, you can further enhance your landing skills and achieve even better scores in the future. Keep up the good work and continue striving for excellence in your aircraft landings!
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values