Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
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 · 20 stages, 19 scored
Events
Events
Events
Events
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 1,893 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 386 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Overall, while the aircraft landing score of 86.6% is respectable, there are some areas that could use improvement.
Starting with the Approach Phase, it is noted that the descent path was above the glideslope limit. This suggests that the aircraft may have been coming in too steeply, potentially leading to a harder landing than desired. Moving forward, pilots should strive to maintain a more controlled descent path within the designated limits to ensure a smoother transition into the landing phase.
During the Landing Phase, the threshold height was significantly above target and the landing flare was rated as very poor. This indicates that the aircraft may have descended too rapidly towards the runway, leading to a higher threshold height upon touchdown. Additionally, a poor landing flare can result in a harder touchdown, putting unnecessary stress on the aircraft and passengers. Pilots should focus on executing a well-controlled landing flare to achieve a smoother touchdown and reduce the likelihood of a hard landing.
In the Touchdown Phase, while the touchdown rate was rated as very hard, the speed was on target and the touchdown distance fell within the designated zone. However, the runway touchdown position was noted to be 4.5 meters from the centerline. To improve in this phase, pilots should aim to achieve a softer touchdown to minimize wear and tear on the aircraft landing gear, while also focusing on precision in aligning with the centerline for a smoother rollout.
Moving on to the Rollout Phase, it is highlighted that the runway alignment was 5.2 meters from the centerline. Maintaining precise runway alignment is crucial for a safe and efficient rollout, and pilots should pay close attention to this aspect to enhance overall landing performance.
Despite these areas for improvement, it is important to acknowledge the strengths of the landing score at 86.6%. This demonstrates proficiency in various aspects of the landing process and serves as a solid foundation for further improvement. With dedicated practice and attention to detail in the identified areas, pilots can strive for even higher landing scores and ultimately ensure safer and more efficient landings in the future. Keep up the good work and continue to fine-tune your skills for a smoother and more precise landing experience.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values