Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Maintain the centreline
A small uncorrected heading error at 40 knots becomes a metre of offset per second by 100 knots, noticed only at rotation, producing a crabbed liftoff. Root cause is nearly always eyes on the tape instead of the far end of the runway. Small heading changes displace a distant point visibly long before the nearby centreline stripes look wrong.
Read more in Improve Your Take-OffsStart to finish · 23 stages, 21 scored
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 1,921 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,921 m of the 3,591 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 627 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight in the Airbus A380 began with a 9-minute taxi from the parking area to the runway at Newcastle Airport. Departing from runway 25, the aircraft had a takeoff distance of 1,028 meters, using 49% of the runway. The liftoff speed was 159 knots. The local weather at the time of departure was 12°C with a 3 knot wind coming from 240°, resulting in a 3 knot headwind.
The enroute climb started over Newcastle, climbing from 1,290 feet to 7,817 feet in 2 minutes and covering 6 nautical miles. The level cruise portion of the flight began over Chopwell and lasted 2 minutes, covering 10 nm. Another climb occurred 1 mile northwest of Tow Law, climbing from 8,346 feet to 26,722 feet in 4 minutes and covering 26 nm. The subsequent level cruise phase started 3 miles west of Leyburn and lasted 13 minutes, covering 89 nm.
The descent portion of the flight commenced 1 mile northeast of Stafford, descending from 27,208 feet to 20,639 feet in 4 minutes and covering 30 nm. Another level cruise segment started over Balsall Common and lasted 2 minutes, covering 12 nm. A second descent began 1 mile south of Harbury, descending from 20,470 feet to 1,883 feet in 16 minutes and covering 54 nm.
The landing took place on runway 09L at London Heathrow Airport, with a runway length of 3,591 meters. The aircraft touched down 626 meters from the threshold at a speed of 160 knots, with a vertical speed indicator reading of -276 ft/m. The weather at the time of landing was recorded as 12°C with a 6 knot wind coming from 100°, resulting in a 6 knot headwind and 1 knot crosswind. The total landing distance was 1,842 meters, using 51% of the runway.
After landing, the Airbus A380 taxied from the runway to the parking area in 8 minutes, covering less than 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 237 nm, taking 71 minutes and consuming 12,159 kg of fuel.
Overall, I want to begin by acknowledging the positive aspects of the aircraft landing score, which came in at an impressive 94.2%. This high score reflects the pilot's skill and expertise in a number of key areas throughout the landing process.
In the Approach Phase, the glideslope alignment was noted as excellent, demonstrating a high level of precision and accuracy in maintaining the correct descent path towards the runway. However, it is important to address the issue of speed being too high during this phase, as excessive speed can impact the overall landing quality and safety of the aircraft.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, the assessment highlighted a good threshold height, indicating that the pilot was able to make a smooth transition from the descent to the landing stage of the approach. The landing flare was deemed fair, meaning there is room for improvement in achieving a more controlled and consistent landing technique.
In the Touchdown Phase, there were a few areas that could be fine-tuned for future landings. The touchdown rate was described as firm, suggesting that the aircraft landed with more force than desired. Additionally, the speed was slightly above the target, which could potentially lead to issues with braking and deceleration upon touchdown. The touchdown point being 212 meters beyond the designated zone is a concern, as it indicates a need for improved judgement and precision in landing the aircraft within the designated parameters. Furthermore, the runway touchdown position being 1.5 meters off the centerline calls for better alignment and positioning during the touchdown phase.
Lastly, in the Rollout Phase, the runway alignment was praised as very good, indicating that the pilot was able to maintain a straight path upon landing. This is a crucial aspect of the landing process as it ensures the safe and efficient exit of the aircraft from the runway.
In conclusion, while the aircraft landing score of 94.2% is commendable, there are areas identified within the various phases of the landing process that can be improved upon for future flights. With continued practice and attention to detail, the pilot can work towards achieving an even higher level of precision and consistency in their landings. Keep up the good work and use this feedback as motivation to strive for excellence in all future landings!
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values