Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Departure
On the roll, make small rudder corrections against a point at the far end of the runway to hold the centreline within 8.7 m.
What happened: The takeoff roll drifted off the centreline by 8.7 m, and excess bank then carried through all three climb segments. A drifted roll like this usually leads into wandering bank angle through the climb.
Watch for: Watch the heading indicator and runway centreline during the roll, and the attitude indicator for wings level through the climb.
See Departure RollDeparture Climb 1Departure Climb 2Departure Climb 3
Arrival
Keep the back pressure coming through the flare so the sink does not return at 139 fpm.
What happened: The flare arrested the sink, but then the sink returned before touchdown.
Watch for: Watch the VSI in the flare and keep arrested sink from returning before touchdown at 175 fpm.
See Arrival Landing
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 · 18 stages, 17 scored
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.
Two stabilised approach gates, each with seven checks, where the approach path is 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway.
At the 1,000 ft gate: gear still up, no landing flap set and speed above the reference speed.
At the 500 ft gate: gear still up, no landing flap set, off the runway's 3° glideslope and speed above the reference speed.
The approach, gate by gate
Side view — the last 1,524 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 1,524 m of the 2,480 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 976 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with a departure roll from runway 08 at Lennart Meri Tallinn Airport, EETN. The ATR 72 aircraft took off with a takeoff distance of 526 meters, which was 19% of the runway length. The liftoff speed was 123 knots. At the time of departure, the local weather conditions were a temperature of 8 degrees Celsius, with a wind speed of 13 knots at 140 degrees. This resulted in a crosswind of 10 knots and a headwind of 9 knots.
As the aircraft climbed, it started its enroute climb 1 mile northwest of Lagedi, Estonia. The climb was from an altitude of 1,147 feet above sea level to 19,518 feet above sea level, an increase of 18,371 feet in 19 minutes, covering a distance of 57 nautical miles. The enroute level cruise then started 19 miles south of Hanko, Finland, and lasted for 66 minutes, covering a distance of 87 nautical miles.
The aircraft then began its enroute descent 28 miles south of Mariehamn, Finland. The descent was from an altitude of 19,582 feet above sea level to 18,890 feet above sea level, a decrease of 692 feet in 2 minutes, covering a distance of 6 nautical miles. The enroute level cruise then started again 27 miles south of Mariehamn and lasted for 7 minutes, covering less than 1 nautical mile.
The aircraft then began its final descent 27 miles south of Mariehamn. The descent was from an altitude of 18,557 feet above sea level to 1,410 feet above sea level, a decrease of 17,147 feet in 15 minutes, covering a distance of 55 nautical miles. The final approach to runway 26 at Stockholm-Arlanda Airport, ESSA, was from the east, heading 253.0 degrees at 4 nautical miles and 1,281 feet above ground level.
The landing on runway 26 at ESSA was performed with a runway length of 2,480 meters. The threshold height at 107 feet above ground level was excessively over target, and the threshold speed was too high at 134 knots. The touchdown point was 508 meters beyond the touchdown zone, and the touchdown speed at 108 knots was a little fast. However, the touchdown rate was good at -195 feet per minute, and the runway touchdown alignment was perfect.
The local weather conditions at the time of landing were a temperature of 10 degrees Celsius, with a wind speed of 14 knots at 150 degrees. This resulted in a crosswind of 13 knots and a tailwind of 4 knots. The total landing distance was 1,372 meters, which was 55% of the runway length. The runway rollout alignment was misaligned by 22.0 meters from the centerline.
After landing, the aircraft taxied to the parking area from the runway in 3 minutes, covering less than 1 nautical mile. The total flight distance was 212 nautical miles, taking 65 minutes, and the aircraft used 934 kilograms of fuel.
The ATR 72 aircraft successfully landed at ESSA Stockholm-Arlanda Airport, but with some areas for improvement. The final approach was initiated from the east, heading 253.0° at a distance of 4 nautical miles and an altitude of 1,281 feet above ground level (agl). The aircraft touched down on runway 26, which has a length of 2,480 meters.
However, there were some discrepancies in the landing performance. The threshold height at 107 feet agl was excessively over the target, indicating that the aircraft may have been too high during the approach. Additionally, the threshold speed was too high at 134 knots, which could have contributed to the high touchdown speed. The touchdown point was 508 meters beyond the touchdown zone, and the touchdown speed of 108 knots was a little fast.
On a positive note, the touchdown rate was good at -195 feet per minute (fpm), and the runway touchdown alignment was perfect. The local weather conditions were also favorable, with a temperature of 10°C and wind speeds of 14 knots at 150°. The crosswind was 13 knots, and the tailwind was 4 knots.
The total landing distance was 1,372 meters, which is 55% of the runway length. Although this is within the acceptable range, there is room for improvement. The runway rollout alignment was misaligned by 22.0 meters from the centerline, which could have been avoided with more precise control during the rollout phase.
Overall, the landing was successful, but there are areas where the pilots can improve their performance to achieve a more optimal landing.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values