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 · 16 stages, 14 scored
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 5,000 ft of the approach.
Plan view — the first 5,000 ft of the 8,983 ft runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 587 ft touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The 2.95 G arrival is the firm side of smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with a taxiing period from the parking to the runway, which took 17 minutes and covered a distance of 3 nautical miles. The aircraft, a Boeing B737-800, then departed from runway 04 at the Greenville Spartanburg International Airport (KGSP). The takeoff distance was 9,061 feet, which accounted for 82% of the runway. The liftoff speed was 159 knots.
As the aircraft climbed to its cruising altitude, it started its enroute climb 1 mile south east of Greer, South Carolina. The climb took 19 minutes and covered a distance of 71 nautical miles, with the aircraft rising from an altitude of 1,363 feet above sea level to 27,949 feet above sea level, an increase of 26,586 feet. The enroute level cruise started 2 miles north of Homer, Georgia, and lasted for 3 minutes, covering 18 nautical miles.
The enroute descent began 1 mile south west of Aiken Field Talmo (85GA) in Georgia, where the aircraft descended from 27,763 feet above sea level to 2,885 feet above sea level, a decrease of 24,878 feet in 21 minutes, covering 47 nautical miles. Another enroute level cruise started 1 mile west of College Park, Georgia, and lasted for 3 minutes, covering less than 1 nautical mile. The final descent began overhead College Park, where the aircraft descended from 2,675 feet above sea level to 844 feet above sea level, a decrease of 1,831 feet in 2 minutes, covering 3 nautical miles.
The aircraft landed on runway 28 at Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport (KATL), which had a runway length of 8,983 feet. The threshold height was good, and the threshold speed was also good at 138 knots. The touchdown distance was 212 feet, and the touchdown speed was 137 knots, both of which were good. However, the touchdown rate was very heavy at -1,030 feet per minute. The runway touchdown position was excessively misaligned by 207 feet from the centreline.
The total landing distance was 3,950 feet, which accounted for 44% of the runway. The runway rollout alignment was also excessively misaligned by 209 feet from the centreline. The taxiing period from the runway to the parking took 3 minutes and covered less than 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 145 nautical miles, and the flight duration was 50 minutes. The aircraft used 5,060 pounds of fuel during the flight.
The Boeing B737-800 aircraft has landed on runway 28 at KATL Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport, scoring 58.2%. The landing was conducted on a runway with a length of 8,983 ft, which is considered sufficient for the aircraft. The threshold height was good, indicating that the aircraft was at the correct height as it approached the runway.
The threshold speed of 138 kt was also within the acceptable range, suggesting that the pilot had maintained a safe speed as they prepared to touch down. The touchdown distance of 212 ft was good, indicating that the pilot had maintained control of the aircraft and had not over-extended the landing. The touchdown speed of 137 kt was also within the acceptable range, further indicating that the pilot had handled the landing safely.
However, the touchdown rate of -1,030 fpm was very heavy, suggesting that the pilot may have applied too much reverse thrust or braking during the landing. This could potentially have caused the aircraft to skid or lose control, although in this case, it appears that the pilot was able to maintain control.
One of the major issues with this landing was the runway touchdown position, which was excessively misaligned by 207 ft from the centreline. This suggests that the pilot may have been off-centre as they touched down, which could have made it difficult to maintain control of the aircraft during the rollout. The runway rollout alignment was also excessively misaligned by 209 ft from the centreline, further indicating that the pilot may have struggled to maintain control of the aircraft during the landing.
The local weather conditions at the time of the landing were mild, with a temperature of 65 °F. This suggests that the weather was not a factor in the landing, and that the pilot's performance was the primary cause of the issues with the landing.
Overall, while the landing was not perfect, it appears that the pilot was able to maintain control of the aircraft and bring it to a safe stop. However, the heavy touchdown rate and excessive misalignment of the runway touchdown position and rollout alignment suggest that the pilot may have been able to improve their performance during the landing.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values