Events
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 · 18 stages, 16 scored
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
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.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 2,259 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 2,259 m of the 2,560 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 1,261 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with the Airbus A320 taxiing from the parking area to the runway at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, taking 11 minutes and covering a distance of 3 nautical miles. The departure roll took place on runway 03L, with the aircraft lifting off at a speed of 178 knots after covering 88% of the 2,270-meter runway.
As the aircraft took to the skies, it encountered local weather conditions of 27°C temperature and a wind speed of 13 knots at 50°. The crosswind was 5 knots, while the headwind was 12 knots. The enroute climb started 2 miles west of Taylor, Michigan, and saw the aircraft ascend from 1,646 feet above sea level to 38,086 feet, an increase of 36,440 feet in 21 minutes, covering a distance of 139 nautical miles.
Following the climb, the aircraft entered a level cruise phase, starting 1 mile northwest of Waisley Airport in Pennsylvania. This phase lasted 21 minutes and covered a distance of 178 nautical miles. The enroute descent began 7 miles southeast of Dushore, Pennsylvania, and saw the aircraft descend from 38,146 feet to 1,314 feet, a decrease of 36,832 feet in 24 minutes, covering a distance of 123 nautical miles.
The final approach to runway 04R at John F. Kennedy International Airport was made from the southwest, with the aircraft heading 28.0° at 4 nautical miles and 1,289 feet above ground level. The landing took place on a runway with a length of 2,560 meters, and the threshold height was good. The threshold speed was well above the target at 145 knots, while the touchdown speed was 122 knots, which was considered good.
The touchdown point was very long, using more than 50% of the available runway. The touchdown rate was fair at -276 feet per minute, and the runway touchdown position was slightly misaligned by 6.5 meters from the centerline. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were 21°C temperature and a wind speed of 18 knots at 24°, with a crosswind of 2 knots and a headwind of 18 knots.
The total landing distance was 2,173 meters, which was 85% of the runway length. The runway rollout alignment was very good. The taxiing to the parking area from the runway took 5 minutes and covered less than 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 450 nautical miles, taking 83 minutes, and the aircraft used 3,301 kilograms of fuel during the flight.
The Airbus A320 aircraft successfully landed on runway 04R at KJFK John F Kennedy International Airport, but with some notable observations. The final approach was initiated from the southwest, heading 28.0° at 4 nautical miles and 1,289 feet above ground level (agl). The aircraft touched down on the runway, but the touchdown point was quite far down the runway, utilizing more than 50% of the available length.
The threshold speed was significantly higher than the target speed, reaching 145 knots. This indicates that the aircraft was likely configured for a longer landing distance, which was indeed the case. The touchdown speed of 122 knots was within the acceptable range, suggesting that the pilots maintained control and managed the descent effectively. However, the touchdown rate of -276 feet per minute (fpm) was only fair, indicating that the aircraft could have been brought down more smoothly.
The runway touchdown position was slightly misaligned from the centerline by 6.5 meters, which may have been due to the crosswind or pilot error. The local weather conditions were favorable, with a temperature of 21°C and a headwind of 18 knots. The crosswind was minimal, at 2 knots, which reduced the impact on the landing.
The total landing distance of 2,173 meters was 85% of the available runway length, which is a relatively long distance. This suggests that the pilots may have been more cautious in their approach, taking into account the wind conditions and the aircraft's performance. The runway rollout alignment was excellent, indicating that the pilots maintained control and aligned the aircraft with the runway centerline during the rollout phase.
Overall, the landing was successful, but with some areas for improvement. The pilots could have worked on reducing the touchdown rate and improving the touchdown point alignment. However, the aircraft's performance and the pilots' skills were sufficient to ensure a safe and controlled landing.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values