Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Departure
Level the wings with coordinated aileron to hold bank angle near zero during the initial climb, starting from 1.9°.
What happened: Bank angle was elevated during the initial climb and excess bank usually persists into the second climb segment.
Watch for: Attitude indicator, wings level with bank angle near zero degrees.
Arrival
Fly the flare as one continuous check of the sink rate from 14 ft, holding back pressure steadily rather than adjusting pitch piecemeal.
What happened: The flare drifted away from its intended profile rather than tracking it smoothly from 14 ft down to touchdown.
Watch for: Watch radio altitude and VSI through the flare, aiming to arrest the sink smoothly from 14 ft to touchdown.
See Arrival Landing
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 · 19 stages, 17 scored
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.
Two stabilised approach gates, each with seven checks, where the approach path is 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 1,549 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,549 m of the 3,496 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 789 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with the aircraft, an Airbus A320, taxiing from the parking area to the runway at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, taking approximately 8 minutes to cover less than 1 nautical mile. The departure roll took place on runway 24L, with the takeoff distance covering 55% of the runway's length. The aircraft lifted off at a speed of 150 knots.
As the aircraft climbed to its cruising altitude, it started its enroute climb 1 mile northeast of Olmsted Falls, Ohio. The climb from 1,726 feet above sea level to 14,990 feet above sea level, an increase of 13,264 feet, took 8 minutes and covered 35 nautical miles. The local weather conditions at the time were characterized by a temperature of 26 degrees Celsius.
The enroute descent began 3 miles north of the 93OH Gay Airport Atwater, Ohio, where the aircraft descended from 14,994 feet above sea level to 9,995 feet above sea level, a decrease of 4,999 feet, in 5 minutes and covering 34 nautical miles. The aircraft then entered a level cruise phase, lasting 3 minutes and covering 18 nautical miles, as it flew overhead Negley, Ohio.
The enroute descent continued as the aircraft flew overhead Ambridge, Pennsylvania, where it descended from 9,398 feet above sea level to 2,345 feet above sea level, a decrease of 7,053 feet, in 7 minutes and covering 7 nautical miles. The final approach to runway 28L at Pittsburgh International Airport was made from the east, with the aircraft heading 272.0 degrees at 4 nautical miles and 1,561 feet above ground level.
The landing on runway 28L took place at a temperature of 25 degrees Celsius, with the threshold height being well above the target. The threshold speed was good at 133 knots, and the touchdown speed was also good at 125 knots. The touchdown rate was excellent at -73 feet per minute. However, the touchdown point was 367 meters beyond the touchdown zone, and the runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 21.9 meters from the centerline.
The total landing distance was 1,461 meters, covering 42% of the runway's length. The runway rollout alignment was also misaligned by 29.4 meters from the centerline. The aircraft then taxied to the parking area, taking approximately 3 minutes to cover less than 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 102 nautical miles, taking 35 minutes, and the aircraft used 1,207 kilograms of fuel during the flight.
The Airbus A320 aircraft successfully landed on runway 28L at KPIT Pittsburgh International Airport, but with some notable deviations from the ideal landing parameters. The final approach was initiated from the east, heading 272.0° at a distance of 4 nautical miles and an altitude of 1,561 feet above ground level (agl). The aircraft's approach speed and threshold speed were both within acceptable limits, at 133 knots, which is a good indication of the pilot's control over the aircraft's descent.
However, the threshold height at 73 feet agl was significantly above the target, indicating that the aircraft may have been descending too slowly or that the pilots may have been trying to maintain a higher altitude than necessary. This could be a result of the pilots' decision to prioritize a more stable approach over a faster descent. The touchdown point was 367 meters beyond the touchdown zone, which is a relatively long distance, but the touchdown speed of 125 knots was still within the acceptable range.
The touchdown rate of -73 feet per minute (fpm) was an excellent indicator of the pilot's control over the aircraft's descent, as it suggests a smooth and controlled touchdown. However, the runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 21.9 meters from the centerline, which could be a result of the pilots' failure to maintain a straight course during the final approach or a miscalculation of the aircraft's position relative to the runway.
The local weather conditions at the time of the landing were favorable, with a temperature of 25°C, which is within the acceptable range for landing operations. The total landing distance of 1,461 meters, which is 42% of the runway length, is also within the acceptable range. However, the runway rollout alignment was misaligned by 29.4 meters from the centerline, which could be a result of the pilots' failure to maintain a straight course during the rollout or a miscalculation of the aircraft's position relative to the runway.
Overall, while the landing was successful, there were some notable deviations from the ideal landing parameters, which could be addressed through additional training or adjustments to the pilots' approach procedures.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values