Originally Posted by 990Convair

The "11" was the second easiest transport category aircraft I have flown behind the 757 which is like having training wheels on your plane. This whole "dinner plate saucer" talk is nuts. It's very easy to land, very mechanical and similar to a heavy 727-200 in the flare. One thing that makes the "11" tough is the mission. Two guys, flying metric China on L888 trans-Asian with difficult sleep patterns is a challenge.

Also, while there have been isolated accidents at other smaller carriers (2 that I know of, china and the recent Russian carrier) there have been NO accidents at airlines that flew them FOR YEARS - AA, DL, UPS, Varig, Finnair, Swissair, World, Lufthansa...etc (elec fire notwithstanding). The problem, I believe is the stark difference (not difficulty) between the MD-11 and the MD-10. The problem here is the common type. We are the only airline when compared to the aforementioned that have guys bouncing from MD10 to MD11. You have folks that may:

1. Fly an MD-11 international for years (due to high seniority and Int'l preference) then get drafted for a domestic MD-10-10 trip to Denver or SLC in Wx having not seen a -10 for eons.

2. Conversely folks that can't hold international and are very proficient in the MD10's feel getting launched internationally in a heavy MD11 that they last flew long ago.

3. RFO's or junior Capt's that have flown neither for quite some time and have developed NO FEEL.

So, if our new VP of flt training/stds is watching, here's one line guy's recommendation:

4 month international bid cycles that are posted and bid on. The successful bidders will ONLY fly MD11's, period. Upon successful bid award, you come to MEM or ANC and get two hours of bounce and go's in the sim, no jeopardy, and paid for by the company as training on a day off. Snapshots from the marker inbound with every weight, CG, and wind imaginable with the instructor highlighting differences. When you rotate off the 4 month international bid and go back to domestic, you do the same thing in the MD10 sim.

The problem is the DIFFERENCE between the beasts coupled with our system form and scheduling history.

Originally Posted by pipe

Clean maneuver speeds of 290+ are not indicative of good design.

PIPE

Originally Posted by Cargo Pirate

It is amusing the way we train, to a very low level of math/engineering.
The MD-11 has the highest approach speed of any 121 airplane. High MVsquared = more energy=harder to land.
If you can find a lift diagram you will see that the MD-11 lift curve drops off drastically at just a few know slower than approach speed. If you lose speed due to any reason, your vector heads down. Gear, wing spar, LSAS, tail strikes, elevator size, and other issues make recovering from a big sink different from other airplanes.
I do believe we have over-simplified landing technique and there is good info being put out now by standards and RGS.

Originally Posted by Cargo Pirate

"So if you are on speed at say 100 ft, and then add crosswind controls just as the aircraft chops the power at 50 ft, you probably will find yourself in a world of hurt?"

Yes, that would be bad.
By procedure we are supposed to input crosswind controls before 100 ft. but I have found myself behind the airplane a few times.
Crosswind controls affect lift in a big way on a high wing loaded aircraft.

Originally Posted by pipe

You're not making sense. It's MD-11's that are crashing. If the common type is the problem, then why aren't guys from ANC crashing MD-10's when they do one leg in an MD-10 every six months? Because one airplane is more dangerous than the other - period. Data is data. You need only compare accident rates. It's abnormally high per flight hour on the 11. Now, factor in that it flies the long haul and evaluate the data per "operation". Off the charts.

You are the only pilot I have ever heard compare it to a 727. The thing is, you can dribble the 727 down the runway, pound it into the concrete, land it in a crab - downwind gear first, and then taxi to the blocks. Do any of those individually in an -11 and chances are that somewhere in the sequence a main gear strut collapses or a wing spar fails and you're on fire and on your back.

I ain't making this stuff up - you can read about it all over the net. Can the airplane be flown safely - of course. Is it as good (safe) a design as other airplanes in its class - absolutely not. Clean maneuver speeds of 290+ are not indicative of good design.

PIPE

Originally Posted by 990Convair

Which is why our technique of adding ZERO knots until you get over a 20KT Xwind adds to the problem. So, for a 30KT Xwind you are only adding 1/2 stdy state, or 5 kts to a jet that only uses 5kts above Vref? That is a problem in my book. You are right, in any aircraft, you cross-control, you add drag to the equation and with just 5kts to play with and a reliance on auto-thottles, you could be in trouble quickly. I'll take some extra knots like the good old days, you know, for Grandma, the kids, the dog....

Originally Posted by Cargo Pirate

Yes, that would be bad.
By procedure we are supposed to input crosswind controls before 100 ft. but I have found myself behind the airplane a few times.
Crosswind controls affect lift in a big way on a high wing loaded aircraft.