Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Hold the glidepath
Preparing for a stable approach will give you time to decide on whether to attempt the landing or going around. Too much altitude with a high sink rate will result in carrying too much speed onto the runway. Configuring flaps and the gear late also won't help the speed decay.
Read more in The Stabilised ApproachStart to finish · 19 stages, 17 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.
Two stabilised approach gates, each with seven checks, where the approach path is 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway. They are the approach's score: the checks passed out of the checks that ran.
At the 1,000 ft gate: glideslope 1.8° against the runway's 3° and centreline 1.0° off, against a 1° limit.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 2,331 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 2,331 m of the 2,999 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 717 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Departing from London Luton Airport, the Boeing 737-800 began its journey by taxiing from the parking area to the runway, a process that took 9 minutes and covered 2 nautical miles. As the aircraft lined up on runway 07, it was met with a local weather condition of 13 °C and a wind of 18 kt at 159 °, resulting in a crosswind of 18 kt and a headwind of 1 kt. The takeoff distance of 1,685 meters, which accounted for 81% of the runway, was achieved at a liftoff speed of 155 kt.
As the aircraft climbed away from the airport, it began its enroute climb, reaching an altitude of 36,734 feet in 20 minutes and covering 123 nautical miles. The climb phase was followed by a level cruise, which lasted 82 minutes and covered 623 nautical miles. The aircraft then started its enroute descent, reducing its altitude from 36,994 feet to 5,999 feet in 25 minutes and covering 144 nautical miles. This was followed by a series of short level cruises and descents, with the final descent commencing 2 miles northwest of Lorca, Spain. The aircraft landed on runway 05 at Region de Murcia Intl Airport, with a touchdown point 308 meters beyond the touchdown zone and a touchdown speed of 145 kt.
The landing distance of 2,258 meters, which was 141% of the runway length, was slightly longer than expected. The runway touchdown position was misaligned by 8.1 meters from the centreline, and the runway rollout alignment was also slightly misaligned. The total flight distance was 978 nautical miles, and the flight duration was 162 minutes, with a fuel consumption of 5,970 kg. The aircraft then taxied to the parking area, a process that took 4 minutes and covered 1 nautical mile.
The Boeing 737-800 touched down on runway 05 at RMU Region de Murcia Intl Airport, with an approach quality that was slightly below the expected standard. The aircraft descended from 769 feet above ground level (agl) at 4 nautical miles from the runway, heading 40.0 degrees. The threshold height at 61 feet agl was above the target, indicating a slightly high approach. The threshold speed of 151 knots was well above the target, suggesting a high rate of descent.
The touchdown point was 308 meters beyond the touchdown zone, and the touchdown speed of 145 knots was a little fast. The touchdown rate of -216 feet per minute was fair, but not ideal. The runway touchdown position was misaligned by 8.1 meters from the centreline, which could have contributed to the slightly high approach and touchdown speed. Local weather conditions were calm, with a temperature of 23 degrees Celsius and a gentle wind of 4 knots at 160 degrees.
The total landing distance of 2,258 meters was 141% of the runway length, indicating a longer than expected rollout. The runway rollout alignment was slightly misaligned by 12.1 meters from the centreline, which may have been a result of the initial touchdown position. Overall, the landing performance was satisfactory, but with some room for improvement. The score of 78.2% reflects the slightly below-par approach quality and touchdown characteristics, as well as the misaligned touchdown and rollout positions.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values