Timbo,
Some of the numbers you're talking may have changed since you flew the MD-11 and/or we just operate it differently than Delta. There has also been a change to the flight control system using LSAS (longitudinal stab aug system) that induces a nose down pitch on landing to counter the pitch up you mentioned.

The fuel comes forward out of the tail on descent through about 27K and doesn't stop until you configure. It's pretty fast, so the chances that any would be still back there after a normal descent are small.

You also don't get tail fuel management at all unless the total FOB is greater than 60K. So, unless the aircraft was tankering fuel, it's unlikely there would be any transfer of fuel aft for a short leg like LAX-SFO or SEA-PDX. Perhaps this is a change since you were flying them?

Normal takeoff CG we use is usually in the ball park of 24%. Once we're at or getting close to cruise altitude, it will go back to an absolute max of 32%. During descent it returns to something close to the takeoff CG or less (since normal fuel burn always brings it forward of where it was for takeoff). It sounds like Delta loaded your aircraft a little differently. For us, landing anywhere close to 32% would require a seriously aft takeoff CG to start and/or alot of tail fuel still trapped in the tail tank.

Cheers,
AD

They were constantly 'improving' the LSAS logic with many updates, there were 3 updates in the 4 years I was on it, and I will bet that the fuel system changes you mentioned, were a direct result of the aft CG incidents I mentioned.

The tail fuel would stop going fwd descending through the high teens, I can't remember if it was 19,000 or 17,000, but it would stop at some point on descent and you were stuck with what ever CG you had.

There was quite a fuss made about it after we had our rash of misshaps, so no doubt it was 'fixed' after that.

Also, we had one clown who decided he was smarter than the fuel managemet computer, who went to 'manual' while it was pumping tail fuel to the #2 engine so they flamed out #2. They quickly restarted it, but the airplane had already ratted them out to ATL MX. MX sent them a message, "Did you guys just lose #2??"

"Um...No, why do you ask?"

Did they fix that too?

I don't think they did. I think, now, conventional wisdom is that none of us are smarter than the computer.

If we are going to go manual, we need one of those old joke "decision trees" (the one with "is it broken?", "can you hide it?", "can you blame it on someone else", etc.)
1. To go manual, first pull up the fuel synoptic page.
2. Did it take longer than 5 seconds to figure out what it was doing with the fuel? If yes, then don't mess with it right now.
3. Did you actually say out loud "Why's it doing that?" If yes, then don't mess with it right now.

You get the idea. :D

Which one will get the promotion to VP of Flight Ops?

It was always an adventure flying that thing! ;^)

Most of us were smart enough not to try to -outsmart- it! But we had some guys who came right off the 727 left seat, to the left seat of the MD-11, who were spring loaded to pulling CB's anytime they thought they had an issue.

As you well know on the MD11, pulling/resetting CB's was...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m80ky_7SrPs


Not Allowed.

It actually does more 'stuff' than the 777 does, without asking, or telling you!

Adlerdriver,
Thanks for the great response to my post. I agree that Boeings have a very large envelope and are very forgiving. Coming off the DC-8, I kept asking my 767 IP's, "Whats gonna bite me on this plane?" because on the DC-8 a typical training event was "don't let the engineer flame out an engine" "Watch the panel, when fuel balancing" "Watch your main gear on taxiways" "Watch your engine pods on a crosswind" etc etc. One 727 captain told me I'm crazy going to the DC-8, he said "If your engineer doesn't flame out one of your engines, you'll drag a pod during a crosswind, or taxi into the mud trying to turn it!" So when I asked my 767IP "whats going to bite me on this jet?" he paused for a few seconds and said "nothing really" and its true...it was nice , after flying the 8.

Tom Goodman,
I was the F/O on a 727 inbound to Philly one morning and the Captain was extolling the short field capabilities of the 727 during a conversation. As we flew the approach into RWY 27left I noticed he was dipping low on glidepath, we were visual, VFR, he acknowledged and then landed about 400 feet down and slammed on the brakes so hard I banged my head on the glareshield! we turned off on taxi-way Uniform into the UPS ramp which was about 2800ft from the approach end (Flaps 30, not 40 also) It was quite impressive, but the Engineer didn't like the fact that the Captain surprised us about the STOL demo and reported him to Pro-Standards!!! plus I had a welt on my forehead! If you really want to be impressed, come on over to McGuire AFB or any C-17 base and watch a real short field approach (Lots on You-Tube) we routinely land on 3500ft strips up to 500,000 gross weights with room to spare. Its an aircraft carrier approach, utilizing AOA, landing in the "zone" and MASSIVE manual braking! (No tail Hooks) challenging and Lots of fun
Thanks guys
Vito

I was on the 11 a decade ago. I'm sure there have been many upgrades since then. While I didn't find the airplane unsafe if operated properly, it certainly requires more finesse and attention. I went to the Bus and find the 320/330 to be much better for my tastes. Fifi can make you lazy if you don't fly her manual to keep up the stick skills but it never feels on the edge like the MD did. I would rather stay far into the safe zone and if you call that over engineered, well, I say so be it. I call it well engineered as opposed to pieced together and good enough. The 11 never really felt settled to me, safe enough, but a little raw if you ask me.

I feel that the MD-11 isn't hard to fly, it's just not as forgiving if the pilots screw up. I flew the -11 up to 2012. I've landed a plane full of Hadj pilgrims, at max pax landing weight, on a 8200 ft long, ungrooved runway and had no problems turning off at mid field. When I started flying the plane, guys were afraid to hand fly it and scared to disconnect the autothrottles. It can do everything for you and Boeing wants you to let it do it. I find that it's very easy to let your skills slide. Since I did't write the checks, I flew it the way the manufacture and my airline wanted me to fly it, but I took advantage of every situation where they allowed me to turn the magic off.

Or google "Davis Island C-17"

I'll second what JJP said - I actually enjoyed flying the -11. The other big difference I found between it and the "native" Boeing products (and even the DC-10) is the -11 is VERY light on the gear after touchdown. On the other similar aircraft I've flown, once the ground spoilers deploy it feels like you're pretty well planted. The -11 feels like it's more than willing to still go flying for a while afterwards.

Not a bad airplane, but like JJP said, not overly forgiving. I like the way one captain put it: "Every airplane you fly they always emphasize that you should fly a stabilized approach. Most airplanes you can get away with not doing so (even though it's a bad practice to do so) - on the MD-11, you'd really better be flying a stabilized approach."