Excessive Climb On T/O

[Guest D17S]

I agree. Remembering Boeing's VNAV is available at > 400 feet, setting the MD11's AA to 400 feet (or 1000) would essentially duplicate the 744's 1st/2nd segment TO speed profile. Still, we need to remember the real purpose of AA. Engine-out climb to miss that obstacle. An all-engines climb at V2+10 will provide a Significantly higher ROC than an engine-out V2 climb. Thereby, an all-engines V2+10 climb will achieve AA Much sooner (or in a shorter lateral distance) than an engine-out V2 climb. If the engines keep running this discussion really has no point, but that's not the point.An engine-out V2 climb is a Painfully slow affair. AA is not just an altitude. It's also a lateral distance from the V1 event. Forward-speed X Rate-of-climb will equal 30 (50?) feet above the tip of the down- range obstacle the airplane needs to clear (I.E., the airplane must be able to clear this obstacle even if an engine fails at V1+1). If an engine fails at any liner foot beyond the physical spot on the runway where V1+1 occurs, - additional - clearance over that obstacle will occur. So. if an engine fails (even) at lift-off, the obstacle clearance is made-in the-shade. If the engines are all still running at 400 feet, Boeing's VNAV starts trading off ROC for airspeed. That's the thinking for a Boeing . . . but also - could - be the thinking for Any TO that is seriously observing a V-speed based obstacle avoidance strategy.Other than for noise abatement, I'm curious about how RW crews handle 1-2 segment climb. The Boeing guys can punch in the AP anywhere above 400' cuz their capture AS is averaging up under their actual AS. No so with the MD. I agree that resetting AA to a lower alt works in the sim world, but it otherwise would have some very unforgiving real world consequences.

[Guest regamuffin]

The RW procedures need to be looked into because this seems to go real deep now lolPaul