Landing the MD11

[Orlaam 320]

Chris,These pictures show an excellent landing Touch Down Point.The touch down zone has a total lenght of 900 meters.Your touch down point is at the 450 mtr mark, which is halfway in the TDZ, and excellent compared to real world standards.Regards,Harry

Awesome, thanks! :( I have always found the 747 fairly easy to land for some odd reason, but the MD-11 has improved my landings in all aircraft because of the high speed needed for final. Going 160 knots on final over the threshold forces you to be on your toes, so now when I'm in a slower plane my landings are perfect. The catch is wind or turbulence, but it hardly effects me very often.Landing is really the most challenging part and still my favorite thing to do. I never use AP to land or ILS to get me on track, it just takes all the fun out of it. :(

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

Actually, you can drop below the glideslope anytime on any aircraft if you're wanting to get down on the numbers or soon after. As long as visibility is good, then it's no problem. This sometimes helps with certain aircraft that are difficult in sim to flare and land smoothly.

Sorry for the "threadjack", but in my experience, the above statement is rarely if ever true. I can't say for sure that there's not a single operator out there that allows such a practice, but of the four airlines and one corporate operator I've worked for, the Flight Operations Manual (or equivalent) specifically stated that even when executing a visual approach, if a visual (VASI/PAPI) or electronic (ILS) glideslope is available, it MUST be used, and that the flightpath MUST be maintained at or above that glideslope or a go-around must be performed (unstabilized).For what it's worth.Regards,Nick

[Orlaam 320]

Sorry for the "threadjack", but in my experience, the above statement is rarely if ever true. I can't say for sure that there's not a single operator out there that allows such a practice, but of the four airlines and one corporate operator I've worked for, the Flight Operations Manual (or equivalent) specifically stated that even when executing a visual approach, if a visual (VASI/PAPI) or electronic (ILS) glideslope is available, it MUST be used, and that the flightpath MUST be maintained at or above that glideslope or a go-around must be performed (unstabilized).For what it's worth.Regards,Nick

Well, someone who flies IFR told me that once, but how else would you get her down in a hurry on a short runway? How do so many operators land just past the numbers if they aren't dropping below? The sim puts me pretty far along if I follow the G/S all the way to the runway. I usually start below at around 500 feet and never fall below one dot BTW.

[michal 44]

Well, someone who flies IFR told me that once, but how else would you get her down in a hurry on a short runway? How do so many operators land just past the numbers if they aren't dropping below? The sim puts me pretty far along if I follow the G/S all the way to the runway. I usually start below at around 500 feet and never fall below one dot BTW.

In ILS category I you do NOT follow G/S to the runway, you don't have to. At 200 AGL you can take over and fly visually, you can for example follow a glideslope provided by VASI lights. Also look how big widebody aircraft land on short runways, say runway at St.Maarten - yes they often touch down 700-1000 ft past threshold. "Short" runway is a relative thing - you better have enough runway to land and if runway is too short - go somewhere else.

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

Hi Chris,I can't speculate how an operator justifies landing on the numbers. But to answer your question "how else would you get her down in a hurry on a short runway?":The simple answer is, you don't. No flight takes off without a dispatch release, and part of that dispatch release is the takeoff and landing performance data. The data is calculated for that specific airplane, operating to/from specific runways, and within a specific range of weather conditions at the time of release.The landing data is predicated on crossing the runway threshold on the glideslope at the published TCH. The "Landing Distance Required" includes the "air distance" from over the threshold to where the glideslope intersects the runway, as well as the "ground roll". It also accounts for wet/contaminated runways, and whole slew of other performance related conditions.The data is derived somewhat differently than you might expect. We don't really calculate how long the runway needs to be (though this number is shown), we really calculate how much weight we can land with and still stop within 60% of the Landing Distance Available. Knowing that weight allows us to limit MTOW accordingly. The remaining 40% of the runway is a safety margin.For this reason, there should be no need to "get down in a hurry". A normal landing technique will allow a safe landing with a large safety margin. Michael,I agree with everything you said except for your first sentence. As I mentioned earlier, at each of the operators I've worked for, even when flying a visual approach, if a visual or electronic glideslope was available, it must be used, and the aircraft shall remain on or above that glideslope. In addition, the published guidance establishes the ideal touchdown point as 1,000ft from the threshold, and the acceptable touchdown zone as +/- 500 from "ideal".Again, the end result should be an approach flown on the electronic glideslope until transitioning to the VASI/PAPI (which may or may not not be coincident), and following the PAPI until the flare, followed by a landing approximately 1,000ft down the runway. This guidance is nearly identical for both the DC-10, A319 and CRJ.Regards,NickEDIT: Michael, I re-read your post, and I see that I missed your comment about transitioning to the VASI/PAPI. That certainly satisfies the requirement I mentioned above...so disregard my objection. 0518Z NL.

[justme 0]

I noticed too that landing the MD-11 is harder compared to other aircraft. I just have to relearn landing with this plane. Very interesting. But the best way to learn it is on Kai Tak :)Matyas Majzik

[VIPERGTSR01 22]

I noticed when first flying the MD11 I was dumping to hard onto the runway when attempting to land like other aircraft I was used to, if that was a real situation I think I would have damaged the gear on a couple of occasions. Now I am used to it landings are great.

[2009 0]

In ILS category I you do NOT follow G/S to the runway, you don't have to. At 200 AGL you can take over and fly visually, you can for example follow a glideslope provided by VASI lights.

The use of VASI below 200ft is NOT allowed. As far as I know this applies to the whole world. Google for it and u will find many inccidents/ accidents related to that issue.Anybody disagree?RGDS

[downscc 1,327]

Sorta, the visual aids (VASI/PAPI) are handy references all the way down to flare height but the visual glide path is not always coincident with the electronic glideslope. This should be noted on the approach plates where applicable. Besides, at 200 ft you should be over the approach lights and your visual scan shouldn't be focused on any one thing.

[michal 44]

The use of VASI below 200ft is NOT allowed.

Never heard of it. Rod Machado in his fairly encyclopedic treatment of runway lights never mentions it either.But even assuming it is correct, it is completely academic question. If you are 200 AGL you should be able to control your glide and touch down in the right spot with no need for any VASI lights, if you can't there is something very wrong with your skills as a pilot. Also 200 AGL is already so low (less than 20-25 sec to flare?) that common sense dictates that pilot should be thinking of transitioning to flare and not keep staring at VASI lights. Yes, such fixation on one thing can lead to accidents.

[2009 0]

Never heard of it. Rod Machado in his fairly encyclopedic treatment of runway lights never mentions it either. Yes, such fixation on one thing can lead to accidents.

Right, as i said, there are reasons for not permitting it. Please check by yourself on google.I mentioned it, because sombody before recommended it as a proper landing technic, which is defintely not a good idea.RGDS

[michal 44]

Right, as i said, there are reasons for not permitting it. Please check by yourself on google.

Sorry, could not find anything in aviation literature or aviation internet sites (yes, I googled too) about "not permitting" use of VASI below 200 ft. If you have the information to the contrary please present your sources. As a PPL I don't recall anything of the sort in my pilot training. Clearly when pilot transitions to flare VASI/PAPI cues will become invalid but this will happen well below 200 AGL.

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

Right, as i said, there are reasons for not permitting it. Please check by yourself on google.I mentioned it, because sombody before recommended it as a proper landing technic, which is defintely not a good idea.RGDS

I never said that you should be staring intently at the PAPI's all the way down the pike. I said they should be referenced throughout the final approach.The reason I mentioned transitioning to the PAPI from the electronic glidelope even in VMC, is because the FOM specifically states that the practice is required when the equipment is available and operative. The whole point is to prevent pilots from descending below the intended glidepath, and dragging the mains through the approach lights, houses, and other obstacles (or worse), while attempting to put it on the numbers. Whether PAPI's are more or less accurate than the VASI when in-close is not addressed, nor is the relationship between "eye-to-wheel height" vs. Threshold Crossing Height. It's not the focus of the policy. Unless you have an anti-skid failure enroute, on a wet runway, and you don't have enough fuel to make it to any suitable alternate, I can't think of a fantastic reason to ignore the glideslope in order to plant it right on the threshold. Trying to make the first high-speed at the request of ATC doesn't qualify.I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. It does. But the policy is there for a reason.Nick

[michal 44]

Nick, you are right on the money, I agree with everything you said.

[aentwis 61]

With respect to landing, as mentioned, ATS may be left on all the way down, but close the thrust levers on your hardware joystick/yoke to idle, in order to eliminate possible interactions with the ATS when the aircraft enters flare mode...Remember that ground spoiler deployment causes a little bit of nose up pitch, which can cause bounce issues at higher landing speeds. So don't overflare, otherwise you might find the tail striking, or you will just lift off again, with fully deployed ground spoilers and little energy... uh oh...Don't deploy the reversers until you have the mains planted. Reversers 1 and 3 will work initially with the rear engine (2) reverser deploying when the nosewheel touches down...Or have I got this totally wrong?The MD-11 may not be the easiest to land in the real world, according to some reports at least, but I always find it a rewarding experience in the simulation, particularly if you stick to the guidelines...As regards negative deviation from glideslope, 4 in the red and you're dead, or however the phrase goes. You don't really want to be getting 200 tonnes at 160 knots on final too low below the path... if that were to happen, you might want to go around and try a more stabilized approach...I love threads like this, full of amazing and really useful tips and information! (It may read as though I am trying to be ironic, but what I wrote is meant truthfully!):)Andrew