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, 18 scored
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.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 3,894 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 649 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with the aircraft taxiing from the parking area to the runway, a process that took 8 minutes and covered a distance of 3 nautical miles. The Airbus A321 then departed from runway 32 at Zürich Airport (LSZH), with a takeoff distance of 1,264 meters, which was 40% of the runway length. The liftoff speed was 157 knots.
The local weather conditions at the time of departure were characterized by a temperature of 4°C, with a wind speed of 6 knots at 349°. The crosswind component was 3 knots, while the headwind component was 5 knots. The aircraft then began its enroute climb, starting overhead Oberglatt in the Kanton Zurich region of Switzerland. The climb took the aircraft from an altitude of 2,500 feet above sea level to 37,005 feet, an increase of 34,505 feet in 19 minutes, covering a distance of 126 nautical miles.
Following the enroute climb, the aircraft entered a level cruise phase, starting overhead Misinto in the Lombardia region of Italy. This phase lasted for 28 minutes, during which the aircraft covered a distance of 230 nautical miles. The enroute descent then began 13 miles south of Porto Ercole in the Toscana region of Italy, with the aircraft descending from 36,979 feet to 4,008 feet in 25 minutes, covering a distance of 144 nautical miles.
The aircraft then entered another level cruise phase, starting 1 mile south of Manziana in the Lazio region of Italy. This phase was brief, lasting only 2 minutes, during which the aircraft covered a distance of 5 nautical miles. The enroute descent then began 3 miles south of Bracciano in the Lazio region of Italy, with the aircraft descending from 3,898 feet to 1,273 feet in 3 minutes, covering a distance of 8 nautical miles.
The final approach to runway 16L at Rome–Fiumicino Leonardo da Vinci International Airport (LIRF) was made from the north, with the aircraft heading 163.0° at an altitude of 1,251 feet above ground level and a distance of 4 nautical miles from the runway threshold. The landing was made on runway 16L, which had a length of 3,894 meters. The threshold height was well above the target, while the threshold speed was slightly above the target at 137 knots.
The touchdown point was 235 meters beyond the touchdown zone, with a touchdown speed of 130 knots, which was a little fast. The touchdown rate was firm at -336 feet per minute. The runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 20.6 meters from the centerline. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were characterized by a temperature of 7°C, with a wind speed of 5 knots at 340°. The crosswind component was 0 knots, while the tailwind component was 5 knots.
The total landing distance was 1,366 meters, which was 35% of the runway length. The runway rollout alignment was misaligned by 23.8 meters from the centerline. The aircraft then taxied to the parking area from the runway, a process that took 7 minutes and covered a distance of 3 nautical miles. The total flight distance was 523 nautical miles, with a total flight time of 94 minutes. The aircraft used 3,754 kilograms of fuel during the flight.
The Airbus A321 aircraft successfully landed on runway 16L at LIRF Rome–Fiumicino Leonardo da Vinci International Airport, but with some notable deviations from the ideal landing parameters. The final approach was initiated from the north, heading 163.0° at a distance of 4 nautical miles and an altitude of 1,251 feet above ground level (agl). The aircraft touched down on the runway, but the touchdown point was 235 meters beyond the designated touchdown zone, indicating a slight deviation from the intended landing spot.
The touchdown speed of 130 knots was slightly above the target speed, which could have contributed to the firm touchdown rate of -336 feet per minute (fpm). The threshold height at 73 feet agl was well above the target, suggesting that the aircraft may have been higher than expected during the final approach. The threshold speed was also slightly above the target at 137 knots.
The local weather conditions at the time of landing were characterized by a temperature of 7°C and a wind speed of 5 knots from 340°. This resulted in a crosswind of 0 knots and a tailwind of 5 knots, which may have affected the aircraft's alignment and touchdown point. The runway length was 3,894 meters, providing a sufficient distance for the aircraft to come to a stop.
The total landing distance of 1,366 meters was 35% of the runway length, indicating that the aircraft was able to stop within a reasonable distance. However, the runway touchdown position was significantly misaligned by 20.6 meters from the centerline, and the runway rollout alignment was also misaligned by 23.8 meters from the centerline. These deviations suggest that the aircraft may have been affected by the wind conditions or that the pilots may have had difficulty maintaining a stable alignment during the landing.
Overall, the landing was successful, but with some notable deviations from the ideal parameters. The aircraft's performance and the pilots' skills were able to compensate for these deviations, resulting in a safe and controlled landing.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values