From the FedEx ASAP MOU:

4. APPLICABILITY. The FedEx Express ASAP applies to all flight deck crewmember employees of FedEx Express and only to events that occur while acting in that capacity. Reports of events involving apparent noncompliance with 14 CFR that are not inadvertent or that appear to involve an intentional disregard for safety, criminal activity, substance abuse, controlled substances, alcohol, or intentional falsification are excluded from the program.

14 CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations - Title 14: Aeronautics and Space (aka - FAR's)

And pilots here wonder why we have the reputation for being flying cowboys that we do. Those guys better make their story that they "forgot" to lower the gear, because they are hosed on ASAP if they don't.

We have that reputation because that was the Encouraged corporate culture here for the first 25+ years of FDX flying. The expected "Measure of the Pilot" was over the marker at 250kts, drop everything and land. Tremendous energy and resources have been expended to change that culture, and change it has. I would like to think this incident was an anomalous oversight. :(

There you go. ;)

And of course there is absolutely no way that, in this day and age, a youtube video could have been edited or doctored in any way, right?

Tin foil hats and black helicopters... What's the benefit of doctoring the tape? Where's the angle? Occum's razor (and historic precedent) would not support your implication.

Looks like there are a lot of tools out there who like to play amateur FAA inspector on their downtime. :rolleyes:

I wondered if it was a plumber on the roof of his apartment building (not that there's anything wrong with that) filming airplanes with his daughter's iPhone :eek:

Understand. The "Big 5" will be excluded regardless of whether the event is sole source or non-sole source. I think we are all on the same page here.

Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or "Occam". Had to google it myself a few years back when a pretty funny/sharp NWA check airman used it as a moniker.

One or two here too. Personally, I dont think they were show boating or trying to save gas or anything else. None of my business anyways, never wanted to be a suit, wont try out here.

Personality disorder is a more accurate description than cowboy. ;)

As far as I can find, there is no "AC-120-08" listed on the FAA website. There IS an AC 120-108 that contains the para you mention, but that AC is specific guidance for CDA non-precision approaches. I'm not sure (and frankly doubt) that this approach was one of those.

Specifically what part of CFR 14 are you alleging was in noncompliance?

As near as I can tell, this was possibly (probably) a violation of the FedEx FOM, para 6.45, which would be a company issue, but not a violation of any FAR, which would be an FAA issue. Which is not to say that the FAA wouldn't be interested, but I'm not sure it would/could rise to the level of certificate action and the invocation of ASAP/NASA protections.

Of course the FAA could always (and frequently does) fall back on the "careless and reckless operation" clause when they frown on something but don't have the evidence or intellectual integrity to back up a more specific charge.

Easy there Johnnie Cochran....I didn't "allege" anything. I merely quoted the ASAP MOU - and intentionally didn't add my opinion nor comment.

The point of the highlighting was to point out to those recommending filing ASAP reports - they probably wouldn't be accepted under the ASAP program due to the "not inadvertent" and/or "intentional disregard for safety" clauses.

Now for my comment since you asked - would you NOT characterize that sequence of events as "careless & reckless"? even if they just "forgot" until the last possible moment to lower the gear? (jailhouse law degree aside that is) :rolleyes:

The irony is that a plane spotter with an iPhone, flight tracker and a youtube account can potentially circumvent both ASAP and FOQA.

I'm not sure you understand the ASAP program. Forgetting to put the gear down until right before touchdown is completely inadvertent. It would not be inadvertent if they planned it. It's not like anyone goes out and intends to land gear up. It's a classic human factors issue (if they forgot to do it IAC with the company manual) and exactly why ASAP is in place. And no, the program wouldn't be compromised by filming it, although not reporting it could eventually catch up, and it just goes to show you that someone is always watching :( , and it may not be who you think.

This doesn't mean slips and errors are good, but it's exactly why these systems are in place, to find the "holes" in safety that we don't know about. People that are deliberately unsafe that routinely break rules as planned events are not what the program is really for.

A good resource for this is the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System. Look at planned unsafe acts vs. errors. This would be an error, and why it happened (if it was due to forgetting) would be good to investigate and put some sort of measure in place to prevent or address.

Heyyy, I resemble that remark!

Google is your friend ...

Count of Monte Cristo was written by Alexandre Dumas.

I assume you get it now ... ?
:cool:

I think you're the one who didn't get it. Related to the author by the way?:D

Disregarding this particular incident, I see an institutional mentality that the 'target' to shoot for to be stable is 1,000' IMC and 500' VMC. From the perspective of my airplane that has very low approach speeds and a difference of up to 60kts between intermediate and final approach speeds, the time difference between being stable at 1K and at 500' feet is about 15 seconds. We fly hours and hours and then paint ourselves in a corner over 15 seconds? Just dumb.

Engine out in a heavy airplane?

Maintenance check flight -- GPWS testing?

The flaps sure looked to be at 40 degrees. They looked to be on speed. No significant floating and a normal looking flare/ touchdown.

Would anyone be open to the idea that there is a reasonable explanation and nobody did anything wrong?

Pipe

GPWS checks are made by pulling the gear handle straight out after the gear is down. It gives you three unsafe lights without moving the gear.

Not sure about your math.
500' in 15 seconds sounds like 2000 fpm.
More likely 30 to 50 seconds depending on you approach speed.
Not disagreeing with your point, just your math.

I'm not looking at it from a VSI perspective. Just highlighting the time difference from 1K to touchdown if stable at 1K vs stable at 500'. If that didn't clear up the confusion, I'll be happy to show my math. Sorry for not being more clear about my point.

Landing flaps are either 35 or 50 in the MD-10/MD-11 - not 40 (but you probably knew that :rolleyes:)

I would be open to your idea of a "reasonable explanation" - but it depends on what your definition of "wrong" is.

Anything is "possible"......

**Note: Before you answer - check the MD-11/10 CFM, MD-11/10 FCTM, and the FOM - especially FOM section 1.01 & 1.03

(documents outlining how the FAA has approved FedEx to operate their aircraft/airline)

***Note also: maintenance check flights are not done on revenue flights from MEM to ORD - so that "reasonable explanation" is out from the start.

Well you're talking about distance down, not distance over the ground so you have to use fpm. The typical approach is 750 fpm which equates to 12.5 fps. Therefore 500 feet down would equate to 40 seconds at 750 fpm. At 1000 fpm, 500 fpm equates to 30 seconds. At 2000 fpm, 500 fpm equates to 15 seconds.

If either of the pilots on that flight is watching this thread, I would think that this thread would be punishment enough (!) (and everyone that works for FedEx probably already has taken a peek by now so knows who they are).

Maybe they had a 50kt tailwind at 500ft, that turned around to a 10kt headwind on the ground. And, they briefed for the greater than 1000fpm.

Or, maybe they were victims of the ACF program and crappy and excessive vectoring in above 2000/3 conditions. And, were afraid to go around due to possible fuel starvation.

Sometimes, what looks like something dangerous to the varsity, sitting on the ground, might actually be the safest thing someone could do.

Yeah...that....

or, maybe..... :rolleyes:

Ok, I'll try again. My point was that there seems to be a normalization of doing descent/decel planning to be stable right at 500' if VMC. If everyone just targeted stable at 1K instead, you wouldn't have this video. The complaint I hear about doing this is "you're slowing down too early!"

If 120kts (Vapp) at 1K instead of 180kts at 1K, what's it really cost in time? Assuming both situations would be 120kts at 500', you have 500' to play with. Also, making the math really simple, I'm assuming an instantaneous decel from 180kts to 120kts right at 500'.

Three degree glide path is 314'/nm, so 500'=1.6nm. Compare the difference in time to travel this 1.6nm at 120kts (48 sec) vs 180kts (32 sec). I just don't get the cavalier attitudes I see regarding stable approaches and the willingness most display to say "close enough". All over less than 16 seconds?... If you routinely target stable at 1K, you've at least got a fighting chance to make it with the Mempho 30kt tailwinds. Fly however you want, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

av8rmike, well said.

Inbd right flap might be seen moving and trigger a nice GPWS "too low, gear"

Glad it worked out.

16 secs is no big deal? Do you often hear what sounds like a panicking ATC calling out, "'(call sign)' slow to final approach speed...", and it's not for you?

After burning off that much Jet A, it's now a lighterweight 2-engined heavy plane...Having done enough 2-out-of-3 approaches in sims, it's not that big a deal if one out of three is gone. One out of two is a bit more of an issue, but I can't imagine there's much difference in their manual when doing a 2-engined approach.

Vapp 120 in an MD-10?

First of all, I haven't flown the airplane in several years and didn't care to get into the manuals because it really wasn't germane to the point.

The point was that none of us was there, none of us knows the circumstances, and therefore none of us can come to an informed conclusion.

There are a lot of candidates for flight management positions on this board. Why does everybody want to assume that the crew is in the wrong? I don't get it. I thought this was a pilot board. God help any of us that ever sit in front of a jury of our peers.

PIPE

Only in a MD-10-10 at <250K lbs with 50 Flaps.

:confused: I'm not sure why you would "imagine" there's not much difference. A single engine approach in an MD-10-10 is a pretty big deal. It can barely get out of its own way with 3 engines. Losing 66% of your available thrust tends to be a big deal on any aircraft, IMO.

With an of the MD-11/-10 family a two-engine out approach is significantly different than just one engine out. It's a slats only approach, airspeeds are significantly higher, no auto-throttles during landing and no go-around option once the gear is down or the aircraft is below 1000' AGL.

Single engine out is a non-event in comparison. Normal flap settings and speeds and auto-land is even an option.

you misspelled "auto-land is even a recommended option."

It is funny how someone can post an undocumented video and you guys get your panties in a wad monday morning quarterbacking an act that nobody can prove even happened.

Being bored I'll say at least 2 were running because they had the flaps down. The flight blocked as scheduled and from TOD first leveled at 11,000 for a couple minutes than started final approach from 4000', 12 minutes later. If they had fuel issues they left MEM with them. What scenario are you hoping those things lock out 15 seconds before you need them. Too many sims to count and never was putting myself that far down sans gear except for when it was an oops, It will happen and thats why they have that mode of the GPWS.