Originally Posted by Adlerdriver

Sorry about your extra effort. Just trying to understand the point you're trying to make. I'm still confused by your statements when I try to reconcile them with what is in 25-31.
The reductions of breaking coefficient to which your refer (0.16 to 0.05) is in the section of the circular applicable to "Greater than 1/8" depth of: water". That would look like this: > 1/8"

You first post that I responded to (which I placed below just to make it easy on you) looked like this: < 1/8" Which means: less than 1/8"

Hence my confusion.
Then when I asked you about it, you said that you meant it to be that way but you then changed it in your confirmation to the correct orientation for "greater than" > 1/8"

So, maybe you can understand why it might be a little difficult to understand the point you were trying to make. I think I have it now, but you didn't make it easy. Maybe you're unaware that it actually matters which way these things ( < > ) point.
If you're going to complain about effort responding to people, maybe make your posts accurate to start with and if clarification is required, actually clarify versus create more confusion. Just a suggestion.

Originally Posted by beetlehog

Gentlemen,

Let's not lose sight of how serious this could have been. Just because there was no damage to the aircraft doesn't diminish the potential severity of this incident. As many of you know, this particular airport is surrounded on all sides by little "shanty" houses.

I would like to write a little about landing performance if I may. For the crowd that says "if the computer says it is legal than it is safe"; look at the totality of the situation and start CRM'ing these events a little better. The gentleman or lady sitting next to you might have some very valuable information you might not have thought of or have experienced before. Computers are very nice to have to compute T.O.L. performance but it is still up to us to think critically about other variables. A wise Captain once told me "son, if you don't make that touchdown zone, all those numbers you just pulled out of your backside don't mean a darn thing!" He used more colorful language but the point still is lodged in my brain and hopefully I will never forget it.

I haven't been to this particular airport in some years but from my recollection the build up of rubber at the ends was pretty significant. From the video some of you have written that their braking looked "nill-ish" and it might have been due to their location and I am guessing they were probably landing around 491,500 lbs. This is an awful lot of inertia to stop. Be careful out there guys and gals. Cheers

Originally Posted by FXLAX

This is a good point. Pilots seem to point outcomes when deciding safety. But the industry, rightfully so, has long moved past outcome based safety. In other words, just because there wasn’t an accident/incident, doesn’t mean the flight was at an appropriate safety level. You can go 100mph in your car without a seatbelt and never have anything bad happen but that doesn’t mean it was safe.

Also, as a reminder, the APS does add 1500 feet to account for landing in the touchdown zone.

Originally Posted by beetlehog

A wise Captain once told me "son, if you don't make that touchdown zone, all those numbers you just pulled out of your backside don't mean a darn thing!"

Originally Posted by FXLAX

Also, as a reminder, the APS does add 1500 feet to account for landing in the touchdown zone.

Originally Posted by beetlehog

I am not familiar with APS but at my workplace we use OPT and it probably is almost identical to yours. Technology is such a nice tool to have these days but in many ways it makes us lazy and I am just as guilty as everyone else on this issue. We must always guard against complacency as pilots and I try to do this on every flight and not always successful.

I was wondering if you guys are still dual qual-ed for the MD-11 and MD-10? I have about 3000 hours on the MD11 and always thought it was a pretty tricky airplane to land. My colleagues have told me the DC-10/MD-10 is quite a different animal. If Fedex is like my previous job you guys probably don't get a whole lot of landings per month. I wonder if this had any factor in this particular incident? I can't imagine having to swap back and forth between these two aircraft especially if it has been months since you have flown either type. Cheers.

Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox

Make sense?

Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox

For example, a runway length of 9,500 ft and the landing distance required considering the weather conditions is 7,500 ft. If you touched down at the 2,500 point (still inside the touchdown zone) you're going to be short 500 feet.

Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox

I don't think the APS "adds" 1,500 feet to account for landing in the touchdown zone. The APS landing distances are based on a touchdown 1,500 ft from the threshold. If you land beyond that 1,500 feet down, you must ensure your touchdown point and the landing distance are less than the runway available.

Originally Posted by Huck

This very subject was a factor in our Newark crash. It's amazing we don't teach the lessons learned:

https://wixlabs-pdf-dev.appspot.com/...wPrinting=true

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver

Actually, not at all. APS manual direct quote: "For manual landing, estimated landing distances include a 1,500 feet air run distance".
Autoland uses more variables, but will never include less than 1,500 feet.

In this example you gave, you would have 1000 feet remaining when you came to a stop. Since the estimated landing distance was predicated on a touchdown at 1500 feet leaving 2000 extra and the actual touchdown was 2500, you will use an extra 1000' on top of the estimated 7500 total.

So, the above is incorrect. Hopefully the misunderstanding is resolved. APS does not require you to do extra math to account for the normally expected flare/touchdown process and the runway used as a result.

All this has been the case since that little black "laptop" APS back in the day.