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 · 18 stages, 16 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 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 2,624 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 293 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight on the Li-2 Aeroflot USSR-69318 began with a taxi from the parking area to the runway, which took 11 minutes and covered less than 1 nm. The departure roll was from runway 26 at LRCL Cluj Napoca, with a takeoff distance of 586 m which was 32% of the runway length. The liftoff speed was 80 kn. The local weather at the time of departure was 14 °C, with a wind speed of 10 kn at 310 °, resulting in a crosswind of 8 kn and a headwind of 6 kn.
The enroute climb began 1 mile northeast of Cluj-Napoca, climbing from 2,077 ft above sea level to 3,929 ft, an increase of 1,853 ft in just 3 minutes, covering a distance of 7 nm. The enroute level cruise started overhead Aiton and lasted 18 minutes, covering 50 nm.
The landing took place on runway 27 at LRSB Sibiu, which had a runway length of 2,624 m. The aircraft touched down 291 m from the threshold at a speed of 62 kn, with a vertical speed indicator reading of -206 ft/m. The local weather at the time of landing was 16 °C, with a wind speed of 16 kn at 300 °, resulting in a crosswind of 8 kn and a headwind of 14 kn. The total landing distance was 807 m, which was 31% of the runway length.
After landing, the aircraft taxied to the parking area from the runway in 2 minutes, covering less than 1 nm. The total flight distance was 75 nm, with a total flight time of 57 minutes. The flight used 144 kg of fuel.
Overall, the aircraft landing score of 98.9% is very impressive and indicates a high level of proficiency in the various phases of the landing process.
Starting with the Approach Phase, the excellent glideslope alignment is a crucial factor in ensuring a smooth and safe descent towards the runway. This shows that the pilots were able to maintain the correct angle of descent, which is essential for a successful landing. However, it is noted that the speed was excessively high during this phase. This is an area that could be improved upon in future landings to ensure a more controlled approach.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, the good threshold height and perfect landing flare demonstrate good judgement and technique by the pilots. The threshold height is important for ensuring the aircraft touches down at the correct location on the runway, while the landing flare helps to minimize the impact force upon touchdown. These aspects were executed well in this landing.
In the Touchdown Phase, it is noted that the touchdown rate was fair and the speed was excessively high. While the touchdown rate could be improved upon, the fact that the touchdown distance was inside the touchdown zone is a positive indicator. However, there is room for improvement in managing the speed during this phase to ensure a smoother touchdown.
Lastly, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment being 3.6 m from the centreline is a minor deviation that could be improved upon. Maintaining alignment with the runway centreline is essential for a safe and precise landing.
Overall, while there were areas for improvement such as excessive speed in certain phases and slight deviations in alignment, the landing was still highly proficient with a score of 98.9%. With continued practice and attention to detail, these minor issues can be addressed to further enhance the landing proficiency. Keep up the good work and continue to strive for excellence in each phase of the landing process.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values