Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Arrival
Begin the flare with progressive back pressure and keep it coming until the sink is arrested, rather than flying it on flat.
What happened: The nose was barely raised in the flare and little of the sink was taken out, flying the aircraft onto the runway. This pattern usually carries through to a firm touchdown with a noticeable sink rate.
Watch for: Vertical speed indicator: a smoothly reducing sink through the normal flare band, not a steady rate into the runway.
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 · 22 stages, 20 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 1,595 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,595 m of the 3,527 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 612 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with a taxiing period from the parking to the runway, which took 22 minutes and covered a distance of 5 nautical miles. The aircraft, an Airbus A321, then departed from runway 26R at EDDM Munich Airport. The takeoff distance was 967 meters, which accounted for 24% of the runway. The liftoff speed was 149 knots, and the local weather conditions at the time of departure were a temperature of 8 degrees Celsius, with a wind speed of 13 knots at 250 degrees.
The aircraft then began its enroute climb, starting overhead EDDM Munich Airport and reaching an altitude of 33,849 feet above sea level. This climb phase covered a distance of 110 nautical miles and took 19 minutes to complete. The aircraft then entered a level cruise phase, starting 1 mile south east of Zeil, Germany, and lasting for 22 minutes. During this phase, the aircraft covered a distance of 143 nautical miles.
The enroute descent phase began 3 miles north of Welver, Germany, and involved a descent from 34,026 feet to 21,009 feet above sea level. This phase took 9 minutes to complete and covered a distance of 61 nautical miles. The aircraft then entered another level cruise phase, starting overhead Almelo, The Netherlands, and lasting for 2 minutes. This phase covered a distance of 10 nautical miles.
The enroute descent phase continued, starting 1 mile west of Den Ham, The Netherlands, and involved a descent from 20,849 feet to 5,458 feet above sea level. This phase took 13 minutes to complete and covered a distance of 59 nautical miles. The aircraft then entered another level cruise phase, starting overhead Obdam, The Netherlands, and lasting for 2 minutes. This phase covered a distance of 5 nautical miles.
The final descent phase began 1 mile north west of Stompetoren, The Netherlands, and involved a descent from 5,264 feet to 1,364 feet above sea level. This phase took 4 minutes to complete and covered a distance of 12 nautical miles. The aircraft then began its final approach to runway 18R at EHAM Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, heading 183.0 degrees at 4 nautical miles and 1,358 feet above ground level.
The aircraft landed on runway 18R at EHAM Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, which had a length of 3,527 meters. The threshold height was above the target, and the threshold speed was slightly above target at 135 knots. The touchdown point was 192 meters beyond the touchdown zone, and the touchdown speed was 126 knots, which was a little fast. The touchdown rate was fair at -285 feet per minute. The runway touchdown position was misaligned by 10.1 meters from the centreline.
The total landing distance was 1,511 meters, which accounted for 43% of the runway. The runway rollout alignment was slightly misaligned by 9.7 meters from the centreline. The taxiing period from the runway to the parking took 15 minutes and covered a distance of 4 nautical miles. The total flight distance was 416 nautical miles, and the flight took 102 minutes to complete. The aircraft used 4,408 kilograms of fuel during the flight.
The Airbus A321 aircraft successfully landed on runway 18R at EHAM Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, but with some minor deviations from the ideal landing parameters. The final approach was initiated from the north, heading 183.0° at a distance of 4 nautical miles and an altitude of 1,358 feet above ground level (agl). The aircraft's speed and altitude were within acceptable limits, but the threshold height was above the target, indicating a slightly higher-than-desired approach.
Upon landing, the aircraft touched down 192 meters beyond the touchdown zone, which is a deviation from the ideal touchdown position. The touchdown speed of 126 knots was also slightly above the target, indicating a slightly faster-than-desired touchdown. However, the touchdown rate of -285 feet per minute (fpm) was considered fair, suggesting that the aircraft's descent was relatively smooth.
The local weather conditions at the time of landing were characterized by a temperature of 11°C and a wind speed of 14 knots from 230°. The crosswind component was 10 knots, while the headwind component was also 10 knots. These conditions did not appear to significantly impact the landing, but they may have contributed to the slight deviations from the ideal landing parameters.
The total landing distance of 1,511 meters was 43% of the runway length, which is within acceptable limits. However, the runway touchdown position was misaligned by 10.1 meters from the centerline, and the runway rollout alignment was also slightly misaligned by 9.7 meters from the centerline. These deviations suggest that the aircraft may have been slightly off-center during the landing roll.
Overall, the landing was considered successful, but with some minor deviations from the ideal parameters. The aircraft's performance was satisfactory, and the deviations were likely due to a combination of factors, including the wind conditions and the pilot's judgment. With a score of 86.7%, the landing was considered acceptable, but there is room for improvement in terms of precision and alignment.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values