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 · 18 stages, 17 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 6,878 ft of the approach.
Plan view — the first 6,878 ft of the 8,979 ft runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 2,461 ft past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Overall, this aircraft landing had a mix of strengths and weaknesses in each phase.
The Approach Phase showed good glideslope alignment, indicating that the aircraft descended at the correct angle to reach the runway. The excellent heading alignment suggests that the aircraft was properly aligned with the runway before touchdown, which is crucial for a safe landing. The on-target speed indicates that the pilot maintained a proper approach speed throughout.
However, the Landing Phase had some deficiencies. The threshold height being too high suggests that the aircraft may have descended too steeply before reaching the runway, which could potentially lead to a hard landing. The poor landing flare also indicates that the pilot did not properly adjust the aircraft's pitch attitude before touchdown, which can result in a rough landing.
In the Touchdown Phase, the smooth touchdown rate and on-target speed are positives, as they suggest that the aircraft landed gently and at the correct speed. However, the touchdown point being 335 m beyond the touchdown zone is a significant issue, as it indicates that the pilot misjudged the approach and did not touch down in the designated landing area. The runway touchdown position being very good suggests that the aircraft touched down in the correct spot on the runway, but the fact that it was beyond the designated touchdown zone is still a concern.
Finally, the Rollout Phase showed that the runway alignment was slightly off, with the aircraft being 7.6 m from the centerline. While this may not be a major issue, it still indicates that the pilot could have improved their alignment with the runway during the rollout phase.
Overall, this landing had some positives, such as good glideslope alignment and smooth touchdown rate, but also had significant areas for improvement, such as the high threshold height, poor landing flare, and touchdown beyond the designated zone. Continued practice and attention to these areas can help improve future landings.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values