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 · 26 stages, 24 scored
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 1,534 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,534 m of the 2,790 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 800 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Airbus A320 began with a 5-minute taxi from the parking area to the runway at GCTS Reina Sofia. The departure roll on runway 07 covered 1,755 meters, with the aircraft reaching a liftoff speed of 165 knots. The local weather at the time of departure was 25°C with a wind of 11 knots at 50 degrees, resulting in a crosswind of 3 knots and a headwind of 10 knots.
The enroute climb started overhead El Medano in the Canary Islands, Spain, with the aircraft climbing from 1,183 feet asl to 34,264 feet asl in 26 minutes, covering 163 nautical miles. The enroute level cruise began at a latitude of 30.7262878 and a longitude of -15.9039524, lasting 232 minutes and covering 709 nautical miles.
Subsequent climbs and descents occurred at various locations along the route, including west of Leca da Palmeira, Apulia, Ponte de Lima, Haseldorf, and Hohenfelde. The final descent took place near Bad Oldesloe in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, with the aircraft descending from 10,255 feet asl to 3,014 feet asl in 6 minutes, covering 27 nautical miles.
The landing was on runway 23 at EDDH Hamburg, where the aircraft touched down 800 meters from the threshold at a speed of 131 knots. The total landing distance was 1,439 meters, using 52% of the runway. The taxi back to the parking area from the runway took 5 minutes and covered 1 nautical mile.
Overall, the flight covered a total distance of 1,992 nautical miles, took 560 minutes, and consumed 12,222 kilograms of fuel. The flight experienced varying weather conditions and navigated through multiple climbs and descents along the route before landing safely at EDDH Hamburg.
Overall, the aircraft landing score of 95.0% is a great achievement and indicates proficiency in most areas of the landing process. Let's break down the different phases of the landing and provide some insights on areas of improvement.
During the Approach Phase, the excellent glideslope alignment is commendable as it shows precision in descending towards the runway at the correct angle. However, the slight deviation in speed being above target could be a point of focus for future landings to ensure a smooth transition into the landing phase.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, the good threshold height suggests that the aircraft was properly aligned with the runway before touchdown. However, the very poor landing flare indicates that there may have been issues with the pilot's timing and technique in reducing the rate of descent just before touchdown. Practicing proper flare techniques could help improve this aspect of the landing process.
In the Touchdown Phase, the fair touchdown rate and on-target speed are positive indicators of a controlled landing. However, the touchdown point being significantly beyond the touchdown zone suggests that adjustments may be needed to ensure touchdown occurs at the designated spot. Additionally, the deviation from the runway centerline could be addressed to ensure a more centered touchdown position.
Lastly, in the Rollout Phase, the very good runway alignment shows that the aircraft maintained a straight path down the runway after touchdown. This is important for safe and efficient landing operations.
Overall, while the landing score of 95.0% is impressive, there are areas such as the landing flare technique, touchdown point accuracy, and runway centerline alignment that could be improved upon for even smoother and more precise landings in the future. Continued practice and attention to detail in these areas can help elevate the overall quality of landings. Keep up the good work and strive for excellence in all phases of the landing process!
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values