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 )

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.....

 

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.