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 · 16 stages, 14 scored
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 2,295 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 741 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 departure roll on runway 12 at TNCS Juancho E. Yrausquin Airport. The takeoff distance was 307 meters, which was 103% of the runway length. The liftoff speed was 81 knots. The local weather at the time of departure was 28°C with a wind speed of 10 knots coming from 87°, resulting in a crosswind of 4 knots and a headwind of 9 knots.
The enroute climb started overhead TNCS Juancho E. Yrausquin Airport Saba, with the aircraft climbing from 165 feet above sea level to 1,663 feet above sea level. This was an increase of 1,498 feet in just 1 minute, covering a distance of 4 nautical miles.
Once reaching cruise altitude, the aircraft flew level for 3 minutes, covering 10 nautical miles before beginning the descent towards TNCM Princess Juliana International Airport. The landing was on runway 10, which has a length of 2,295 meters. The aircraft approached at a height of 70 feet above ground level and a speed of 85 knots.
The touchdown occurred 739 meters from the threshold of the runway, with a touchdown speed of 66 knots and a vertical speed indicator showing a descent rate of -108 feet per minute. The local weather at the time of landing was 15°C with a light tailwind of 1 knot.
The total landing distance was 948 meters, which was 41% of the runway length. Taxiing from the runway to the parking area took 1 minute and covered less than 1 nautical mile.
Overall, the flight covered a distance of 34 nautical miles, took 49 minutes, and used 195 kilograms of fuel.
Firstly, it's important to acknowledge the positive aspects of the aircraft landing score. Overall, an 89.6% score is a commendable achievement, and it shows that the pilot has a good level of proficiency in most areas of the landing process.
However, in order to improve the overall score and ensure a more precise and controlled landing in the future, it's essential to address the specific weaknesses identified in each phase of the landing.
Starting with the Approach Phase, the poor descent path above the glideslope limit indicates that the descent was not executed as smoothly and accurately as it should have been. It's crucial for the pilot to maintain precise altitudes and follow the designated glideslope to ensure a safe and efficient approach to the runway.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, the fact that the threshold height was well above the target suggests that the aircraft was not properly aligned for landing. Additionally, a very poor landing flare indicates that the pilot may have had difficulty in controlling the descent rate and angle of approach. These factors can contribute to a rough touchdown and potentially result in damage to the aircraft.
In the Touchdown Phase, while the touchdown rate was smooth and the speed was on target, the touchdown point being 302m beyond the touchdown zone indicates a lack of precision in the landing. Similarly, the runway touchdown position being 2.8m from the centerline highlights the need for improved alignment during the final stages of the landing.
Lastly, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment being 3.6m from the centerline indicates that the pilot may have had difficulty maintaining a straight path after touchdown. This can affect the overall stability of the landing and potentially lead to veering off the runway.
In conclusion, while the aircraft landing score of 89.6% is a strong result, there are clear areas for improvement in each phase of the landing process. By focusing on maintaining precise altitude and glideslope during the approach, improving alignment and flare technique during the landing, and ensuring accurate touchdown point and runway alignment in the touchdown and rollout phases, the pilot can work towards achieving an even higher score and ensuring safer and more controlled landings in the future. Remember, practice and attention to detail are key to mastering the art of aircraft landings. Keep up the hard work and dedication to continual improvement!
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values