Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Shorten the long landing
Ground effect becomes significant below about one wingspan of height. A Cessna 172, with a 36 ft span, enters ground effect at flare height - the float it feels in the hold-off is ground effect arriving on cue. An A320, with a span around 117 ft, has been in ground effect since before the threshold and there is no sudden cushion to feel, only a gradual reduction in induced drag that lengthens any float you allow.
Read more in Flare TimingStart to finish · 21 stages, 19 scored
Events
Events
Events
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 1,742 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,742 m of the 3,984 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 958 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Honda HA420 started at EGFF Cardiff, where the aircraft taxied from the parking area to the runway in 5 minutes, covering 2 nm. The departure roll took place on runway 12, with a takeoff distance of 857 meters (43% of the runway) and a liftoff speed of 127 knots. The local weather at the time indicated a temperature of 17°C, with a wind of 11 knots coming from 160° resulting in a crosswind of 8 knots and a headwind of 8 knots.
The enroute climb began 1 mile east of Rhoose, Vale of Glamorgan, with the aircraft climbing from 1,060 feet above sea level (asl) to 31,821 feet asl, covering a distance of 68 nm in 16 minutes. The subsequent level cruise segment started 1 mile northwest of Kintbury, West Berkshire, and lasted for 39 minutes, covering 275 nm.
The enroute descent was initiated 1 mile east of Sprimont, Wallonia, Belgium, with the aircraft descending from 31,978 feet asl to 11,026 feet asl over a distance of 93 nm in 16 minutes. Another level cruise segment commenced 1 mile northeast of Geisenheim, Hessen, Germany, lasting for 385 minutes and covering 49 nm.
The final descent segment began 3 miles south of Kefenrod, Hessen, with the aircraft descending from 11,033 feet asl to 2,319 feet asl over a distance of 23 nm in 9 minutes. The landing took place on runway 25L at EDDF Frankfurt/Main, with a runway length of 3,984 meters. The height at threshold was 29 feet above ground level (agl), with a speed at threshold of 151 knots. The touchdown occurred 950 meters from the threshold, with a touchdown speed of 112 knots and a vertical speed indicator (VSI) reading of -140 ft/m. The total landing distance was 1,644 meters, representing 41% of the runway.
Following the landing, the aircraft taxied to the parking area from the runway in 6 minutes, covering 1 nm. The total flight distance for the journey was 520 nm, with a total time of 100 minutes and fuel consumption of 797 kg.
Let's start by acknowledging the positives from the aircraft landing score of 85.0%. The Approach Phase had excellent glideslope alignment, which is crucial for a safe and smooth descent towards the runway. The pilot should be commended for maintaining proper alignment during this phase.
However, it is important to address the areas that need improvement to achieve a higher score in future landings. One major issue was the excessive speed during the Approach Phase. High speed can lead to longer braking distances and can impact the overall landing quality. It is essential for pilots to closely monitor their speed and ensure it is within the recommended limits during approach.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, the good threshold height shows that the pilot was on the right track in terms of altitude control. However, the very poor landing flare indicates a need for improvement in technique. A proper landing flare is essential for a smooth touchdown and should be practiced to ensure a more controlled landing.
In the Touchdown Phase, the smooth touchdown rate is a positive aspect of the landing. However, the speed being above target is a concern that should be addressed. Additionally, the touchdown point being 524 m beyond the touchdown zone is a significant deviation that needs attention. This can impact runway availability and efficiency, highlighting the importance of proper touchdown point calculations and adjustments.
Furthermore, the runway touchdown position being 3.0 m from the centerline indicates a need for better alignment during touchdown. Precision in alignment is crucial for safe landings and should be a focus for improvement in future landings.
Finally, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment being 3.9 m from the centerline is another area that needs attention. Maintaining proper alignment throughout the landing phase is crucial for safe taxiing and runway clearance.
In conclusion, while there were positive aspects in the aircraft landing score, there are clear areas that require improvement. By addressing issues such as speed control, landing flare technique, touchdown point accuracy, alignment, and runway clearance, the pilot can work towards achieving higher landing scores in the future. Continuous practice, feedback, and attention to detail will be key in refining landing skills and ensuring safer and more efficient landings.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values