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 · 16 stages, 15 scored
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 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 3,750 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
The flight in the DA40-NG started with a smooth departure roll on runway 11 at LTAD Etimesgut AB. The takeoff distance was 231 meters, covering only 9% of the runway. The liftoff speed was 77 knots. The local weather at the time of departure was 16°C with a light wind of 1 knot coming from 270°, resulting in no crosswind and a slight tailwind of 1 knot.
During the enroute climb, the aircraft started climbing 1 mile south of Batikent in Ankara, Turkey. The climb took the plane from 3,555 feet above sea level to 5,517 feet, with an increase of 1,962 feet in just 3 minutes, covering a distance of 5 nautical miles.
Once at cruising altitude, the enroute level cruise began 2 miles north of Ankara and lasted for 12 minutes, covering a distance of 6 nautical miles.
The landing took place on runway 03C at LTAC Esenboga, with a runway length of 3,750 meters. The height at the threshold was 89 feet above ground level, and the speed at threshold was 72 knots. The touchdown occurred 477 meters from the threshold, with a touchdown speed of 57 knots and a Vertical Speed Indicator (VSI) of -174 feet per minute. The local weather at the time of landing showed a temperature of 15°C, with a light wind of 1 knot from 270°, resulting in a crosswind of 1 knot and a tailwind of 1 knot. The total landing distance was 1,172 meters, covering 31% of the runway.
Taxiing from the runway to the parking area took 9 minutes and covered less than 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 19 nautical miles, with a total flight time of 34 minutes. The flight used 5 kilograms of fuel in total.
First and foremost, I want to recognize the positive aspects of the aircraft landing score, specifically in the Touchdown Phase where the touchdown rate was good. This indicates that the pilot was able to successfully land the aircraft at an appropriate rate of descent.
However, it is evident that there are areas that need improvement in order to achieve a higher landing score. Starting with the Approach Phase, it is concerning that the descent path was poor and above the glideslope limit. This could indicate a lack of precision in controlling the aircraft's altitude during the descent, potentially leading to a less than optimal approach to the runway.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, it is noted that the threshold height was significantly above the target and there was a very poor landing flare. This suggests that the pilot may have misjudged the height at which to initiate the landing flare, resulting in a less than smooth touchdown on the runway.
In the Touchdown Phase, while the touchdown rate was good, there were still areas for improvement. The touchdown speed was a little above target, indicating that the aircraft may have been landing at a slightly higher speed than desired. Additionally, the touchdown point being 128 meters beyond the designated zone could be a sign of inconsistent aiming during the touchdown phase.
Finally, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment being 13.7 meters from the centerline indicates that there may have been challenges in maintaining a straight path after touchdown.
Overall, this analysis highlights the need for improvement in various phases of the landing process to achieve a higher landing score. It is important for pilots to focus on precision, control, and accuracy in order to ensure a safe and efficient landing. With practice and attention to detail, I am confident that the landing score can be significantly improved in future flights.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values