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 · 18 stages, 16 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.
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 1,720 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,720 m of the 2,692 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 805 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with the Airbus A320 taxiing from the parking area to the runway at Brest Bretagne Airport, taking approximately 6 minutes to cover less than 1 nautical mile. The departure roll took place on runway 07R, with the aircraft lifting off after a takeoff distance of 1,373 meters, which was 49% of the runway length. The liftoff speed was 150 knots, and the local weather conditions at the time were a temperature of 10°C, with a wind speed of 10 knots at a direction of 70°.
As the aircraft climbed, it started its enroute climb 1 mile north of Guipavas, France, and ascended from an altitude of 1,289 feet above sea level to 26,720 feet above sea level, an increase of 25,431 feet in 13 minutes, covering a distance of 70 nautical miles. The enroute level cruise began 15 miles northeast of Lanmodez, France, and lasted for 20 minutes, covering a distance of 136 nautical miles.
The enroute descent started overhead Appeville-Annebault, France, and the aircraft descended from 26,222 feet above sea level to 1,671 feet above sea level, a decrease of 24,551 feet in 14 minutes, covering a distance of 72 nautical miles. The final approach to runway 09L at Charles de Gaulle International Airport was made from the west, heading 85.0° at a distance of 4 nautical miles and an altitude of 1,307 feet above ground level.
The landing took place on runway 09L, which had a length of 2,692 meters. The threshold height was above the target, and the threshold speed was slightly above target at 141 knots. The touchdown point was 384 meters beyond the touchdown zone, and the touchdown speed was 134 knots, which was a little fast. The touchdown rate was firm at -362 feet per minute. The runway touchdown position was misaligned by 14.9 meters from the centerline.
The local weather conditions at the time of landing were a temperature of 7°C, with a wind speed of 12 knots at a direction of 40°. The crosswind was 9 knots, and the headwind was 8 knots. The total landing distance was 1,633 meters, which was 61% of the runway length. The runway rollout alignment was slightly misaligned by 14.7 meters from the centerline. Taxiing to the parking area from the runway took approximately 2 minutes to cover less than 1 nautical mile.
The total flight distance was 286 nautical miles, and the flight duration was 59 minutes. The aircraft used 2,339 kilograms of fuel during the flight.
The Airbus A320 aircraft successfully landed on runway 09L at LFPG Charles de Gaulle International Airport, but with some notable deviations from the ideal landing parameters. The final approach was initiated from the west, heading 85.0° at a distance of 4 nautical miles and an altitude of 1,307 feet above ground level (agl). The aircraft touched down on the runway, but the touchdown point was 384 meters beyond the designated touchdown zone, indicating a slight deviation from the intended landing spot.
The touchdown speed of 134 knots was slightly above the target speed, suggesting that the aircraft may have been slightly fast on touchdown. The touchdown rate of -362 feet per minute (fpm) was firm, indicating a controlled descent. However, the threshold height at 65 feet agl was above the target, suggesting that the aircraft may have been slightly high on approach.
The local weather conditions at the time of landing were characterized by a temperature of 7°C and a wind speed of 12 knots from a direction of 40°. The crosswind component was 9 knots, while the headwind component was 8 knots. These conditions may have contributed to the slight deviations from the ideal landing parameters.
The total landing distance of 1,633 meters was 61% of the runway length, indicating a relatively short landing distance. However, the runway touchdown position was misaligned by 14.9 meters from the centerline, and the runway rollout alignment was also slightly misaligned by 14.7 meters from the centerline. These misalignments may have been due to the wind conditions and the pilot's handling of the aircraft.
Overall, the landing was successful, but with some notable deviations from the ideal parameters. The pilot's skills and experience were likely sufficient to handle the aircraft safely, but the deviations may indicate areas for improvement in terms of approach and landing techniques.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values