Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Track the centreline
Preparing for a stable approach will give you time to decide on whether to attempt the landing or going around. Too much altitude with a high sink rate will result in carrying too much speed onto the runway. Configuring flaps and the gear late also won't help the speed decay.
Read more in The Stabilised ApproachStart to finish · 19 stages, 17 scored
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.
Two stabilised approach gates, each with seven checks, where the approach path is 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway. They are the approach's score: the checks passed out of the checks that ran.
At the 1,000 ft gate: sink rate 1,404 fpm, more than the glideslope needed, centreline 1.4° off, against a 1° limit and wings 34° of bank, against a 10° limit.
At the 500 ft gate: centreline 3.0° off, against a 1° limit.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 892 m of the approach.
Plan view — the full 892 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 495 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Departing from Courchevel Altiport (LFLJ), the Kodiak 100 began its journey with a short taxiing period of 3 minutes, covering less than 1 nautical mile to reach the runway. The departure roll commenced on runway 04, with a takeoff distance of 304 meters, accounting for 56% of the runway length. The aircraft lifted off at a speed of 71 knots, taking advantage of a 1-knot tailwind and a 6-knot crosswind.
As the aircraft climbed to 9,965 feet above sea level, it traversed 7 nautical miles in 3 minutes, achieving an increase of 3,382 feet in altitude. The enroute level cruise phase started over Les Allues, lasting 8 minutes and covering 25 nautical miles. The aircraft then began its descent from 10,028 feet to 3,957 feet in 5 minutes, covering 13 nautical miles. This pattern of level cruise and descent continued, with the aircraft maintaining a stable altitude over various points in the Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes region. The final descent phase started over Vaulnaveys-le-Haut, with the aircraft touching down on runway 04L at LFLG Aérodrome de Grenoble Le Versoud.
The landing was executed with a threshold speed of 71 knots, and the aircraft touched down at a speed of 56 knots, with a touchdown rate of -164 feet per minute. However, the touchdown point was excessively long, using more than 50% of the available runway. The runway touchdown position was also misaligned by 54.5 meters from the centerline, and the runway rollout alignment was similarly misaligned by 53.3 meters. The total landing distance was 659 meters, accounting for 74% of the runway length. The aircraft then taxied to the parking area, covering less than 1 nautical mile in 1 minute. The total flight distance was 72 nautical miles, with a flight time of 30 minutes and a fuel consumption of 69 kilograms.
The final approach to runway 04L at LFLG Aérodrome de Grenoble Le Versoud from the south west was initiated at 2 nm and 1,040 ft above ground level, heading 43.0°. The approach quality was satisfactory, with a good threshold height and a threshold speed of 71 kt, which met the required standards. The aircraft touched down at a speed of 56 kt, which was within the acceptable range, and the touchdown rate of -164 fpm was also good.
However, the touchdown point was excessively long, utilizing more than 50% of the available runway length of 892 m. This was likely due to the aircraft's high approach speed and the pilot's decision to flare late. The runway touchdown position was also misaligned by 54.5 m from the centreline, which could have been caused by a combination of factors including crosswind and pilot error. The local weather conditions, with a temperature of 22 °C and a light wind of 5 kt at 336°, did not significantly impact the approach.
The total landing distance of 659 m was 74% of the available runway, which was slightly above the acceptable threshold. The runway rollout alignment was also excessively misaligned by 53.3 m from the centreline, indicating that the pilot may have struggled to maintain directional control during the rollout phase. Overall, the landing performance was satisfactory, but with room for improvement, resulting in a score of 69.9%.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values