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, 16 scored
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.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 2,117 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 2,117 m of the 2,751 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 501 m touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Departing from Tampa International Airport, the Airbus A321 began its journey by taxiing from the parking area to the runway, a process that took 10 minutes and covered a distance of 3 nautical miles. As it reached the runway, the aircraft accelerated down runway 01L, lifting off at a speed of 163 knots after a takeoff distance of 1,614 meters, which equated to 48% of the runway's length.
As the aircraft climbed away from Tampa, it encountered a local temperature of 30 degrees Celsius and a wind of 14 knots at 60 degrees. The enroute climb phase began approximately 1 mile north of the airport, during which the aircraft ascended from 1,055 feet above sea level to 37,010 feet, an increase of 35,955 feet in 19 minutes, covering a distance of 121 nautical miles. Following a 29-minute cruise at a level of 37,010 feet, the aircraft began its descent, reducing its altitude from 37,040 feet to 2,192 feet in 29 minutes, covering 156 nautical miles. The final approach to runway 18R at Charlotte Douglas International Airport was initiated from the north, with the aircraft maintaining a heading of 174.0 degrees at 4 nautical miles and 1,446 feet above ground level.
The Airbus A321 touched down on runway 18R, which had a length of 2,751 meters, at a speed of 131 knots, slightly above the target speed. The touchdown point was 276 meters beyond the touchdown zone, and the runway touchdown position was misaligned by 8.0 meters from the centerline. The aircraft's total landing distance was 2,227 meters, accounting for 81% of the runway's length. Following a taxiing period of 11 minutes and a distance of 2 nautical miles, the aircraft arrived at the parking area, having completed a total flight distance of 504 nautical miles in 97 minutes and consuming 3,829 kilograms of fuel.
The final approach to runway 18R at KCLT Charlotte Douglas International Airport from the north was initiated at 4 nm and 1,446 ft above ground level, heading 174.0°. The approach quality was satisfactory, with a threshold height significantly above target at 81 ft agl. The threshold speed was slightly above target at 140 kt, indicating a moderate level of control during the final stages of the approach.
The aircraft touched down 276 m beyond the touchdown zone, with a touchdown speed of 131 kt, which was a little fast. The touchdown rate was hard at -418 fpm, suggesting a relatively abrupt deceleration upon contact with the runway. The runway touchdown position was misaligned by 8.0 m from the centreline, indicating a slight deviation from the intended path. Local weather conditions, with a temperature of 21 °C and wind at 15 kt from 210°, contributed to a crosswind of 8 kt and a headwind of 12 kt.
The total landing distance of 2,227 m was 81% of the available runway length, indicating a relatively efficient use of the available space. However, the runway rollout alignment was slightly misaligned by 7.9 m from the centreline, suggesting a continued deviation from the intended path after touchdown. Overall, the landing performance scored 78.5%, reflecting a satisfactory but not outstanding execution of the landing.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values