Overweight Landing - When is it necessary ?

[Zenj]

Hi

When does an overweight landing becomes necessary ?

When In non-normal situation is it a must to land as soon as possible even if the weight is above maximum for landing ?

Any references from Boeing / Airbus will be highly appreciated.

Thanks

Zenj

[dkaarma]

When does an overweight landing becomes necessary ?The simple answer is when the risk of staying in the air is greater then the risk of an overweight landing .

When In non-normal situation is it a must to land as soon as possible even if the weight is above maximum for landing ?An on-board fire.

I suppose there is a perception that if a plane lands overweight that the gear will collapse and the tyres will burst and the brakes will catch on fire. Overweight landings are not inherently a dangerous exercise, they just put a greater than normal stress on the aircraft (but will be within their design limits)

But I'm sure there are much more suitably qualified people than me who can give you some technical details/numbers

[Capt Claret]

I've never seen definitive written guidance on when to land overweight.

For me,

1. uncontrollable fire,
2. some other event where in my judgement landing asap is required,
3. medical emergency, where life is believed to be in danger.

[VRSCSE2]

I did an overweight landing back a few years ago on an A320 due to medical emergency. (Passenger heart attack-Doctor said hurry and get on ground.) After the landing and talking to maintenance, they said the big thing is how hard was the landing? If it is over a certain G limit or greater than so many feet per second down then there is a long inspection to do on the aircraft. If you are within the limits it is a visual inspection only.
We did a good landing and had only the visual....I never knew what happened to the pax. I can't remember how much over weight we were but it was at least a few tons.

[FlightDetent]

I only have limited experience with 737-4/500 and A32S. On the 737, OWL was forbidden, unless commander decides otherwise as Capt. Claret describes. On the A320 the situation is the same, but like an icing on a cake, QRH contains an OWL checklist, OW circle-to-land with one engine inoperative data and pilots are trained to do so. That may be course specific The important thing is to make an entry into the tech log because inspection is required. I have been told that unless the touchdown vertical speed was above 460 ft/min (which is rather heavy landing, but maybe my memory fails me) visual inspection will suffice.

At first, I was stunned how "good" the A320 is compared to 737. But if you give it a deeper thought both are certified along the same rules so structural margins could be the same. Maybe all the difference is the manufacturer's decision to equip pilots with a tool to deal with such non-standard situation.

Also, at MTOW and quick landing with 500 kg less A320 comes 16-19% owerweight. I would guess that other small jets are about the same and hence fuel jettisonning is not installed. I wonder what would be the ratio for the widebodies. Is it at all possible to land a 747/340 at MTOW -2t ?

[skiesfull]

Yes - manual landing, as autoland not recommended above max. landing weight.

[maui]

I am with Capt. Claret but would upgrade the uncontrollable fire to ANY FIRE. What is "uncontrollable". Do controllable fires put out less toxic fumes/smoke or do less destruction than an uncontroled fire. I ain't hanging round to find out.

Maui

[captain87]

I think that an overweight landing is severely dangerous in every sitation on every aircraft ... A pilot can perfectly read on the FCOM (Flight Crew Operations Manual) that the fuel dumping is always recommended until a normal landing weight has been established.
I have studied for A320 type-rating (oral only): for the A319/A320/A321 you can find written on FCOM that the overweight landing is inhibited ... but I personally believe that it cannot be performed on other aircrafts otherwise.
If the a/c manufacturers has fixed the limits, this means that their cannot be ovveriden ...
Regards !!!

[Permenant Standby]

As the chaps say above, if you need to do it then do! When you have a cabin fire etc you might as well chuck the manuals out of the window and get it on the deck, that is the priority...I have done 2, one after engine vibratrion and the other medical emergency. On both occasions there was merely an overweight landing inspection to do which takes a couple of hours tops. (NON EVENT). Its all about priorities guys not manuals and beancounters!!

[captain87]

Absolutely true !!!

I think the same. But unlikely the flight manuals state the contary: The overweight landing is severely forbidden. Do not attempt to accomplish a landing at weight greater than the MLW (Maximum Landing Weight) ...
I think that in-flight there is no time to think, the only true procedure is to make what you retain true !!! ... obviously into the safety limits !!!

[Permanent Standby]

Not strictly true, boeing produce a checklist for overweight landing (certainly on 757/767). Aircraft are certified to land at max TAKE OFF weight with rate of descent of 300fpm (from the dark depths of memory)...obviously you do your best to reduce weight towards max landing weight (dump fuel) but not at the cost of anyones life, for example in medical emergency situation....an overweight landing check will be required subsequently.

Yes you run the risk of tyre burst, cooking brakes etc but thats what long runways and reversers are for!!

cheers

Maybe one of the TP/FTE's on here can fill us in on UK certification limits??

[captain87]

Oh yes,
I was refferring to the A320 Family,
I have only a general knowledge of the 767 ...
I do not absolutely put in discussion the existence of the overweight checklists on 767 ... but I'd like to make one question:
Why the 767 is certified to perform an overweight landing and the A320 do not ?
... I think it's purely a question of manufacturers ... Boeing agrees and Airbus disagree etc ...

It's normal that one (FAA or EASA certified) aircraft have to be able to land in every condition, but there is no necessity to say: Aircraft not certified to accomplish an overweight landing ... as the flight manuals state ...
This depends from the situations, it is obvious that if it is possible, the fuel dumping have to be accomplished by the flight crew ...
Question of good sense ...
Regard !

[Permanent Standby]

Yeah capt, i have no idea about A320 family, sorry.
My understanding was that it was a UK CAA certification for any aircraft to come onto the UK reg to be able to do this without any untoward problems? Not 100% sure....maybe the TP's will interject!?

cheers

[captain87]

No problems !!!
Unfortunately the aeronautic is a complicated matter.
One aircraft differs from another and so the pilots ...
The pilots with specific type-ratings are machines programmed to operate
with the certified type only. So it's impossible to find a good compromise ...
I'm an ATPL Student who is studying for A320 CBT since 6 mounths ...
so I have to apologyze with you for having discussed about a stupid topic like the "overweight landing" with 2 different aircrafts !

Regards from captain87

[Permanent Standby]

No problemo its a big topic - quite an interesting one for you when it comes to your command training in a few years.

[captain87]

I thank you for your consideration.
I've 19 years ... too young to become captain ? ... what luck !!! ?!

Good bye !!!

[alf5071h]

“I think that an overweight landing is severely dangerous in every situation on every aircraft.”

Those who think like this may find that they have mistaken beliefs, particularly when the subject is discussed with the manufacturers. Most aircraft type certifications will clear an overweight landing for a touchdown at or less than 6 ft/sec. Although many design safety margins may compromised e.g. wind, drift, brake energy etc, the manoeuvre is perfectly safe; aircraft continue to follow aerodynamic and mechanical laws. The Captains judgement of safety (safety of life) can override AFM limitations – these situations, operations beyond a limit, should trigger additional thoughts about any change of procedure or other mitigating action.
Just remember that the aircraft is heavy, it will involve higher speed and higher energy (V*2). Opportunities for error arise in judging the higher speed and approach path – you may experience an inbuilt bias to slow down to make the landing scene appear normal. The flare manoeuvre, unless specified, should be the same as normal. Remember that the aircraft has taken off at this or a similar weight – the approach and landing capability does not fall off a cliff edge at MLW.

[Charly]

My Information concerning this topic (A320):

- 120 ft/min considered as normal touchdown rate
- 360 ft/min certified up to MTOW (that is the already mentioned 6 ft/sec)
- 600 ft/min certified up to MLW

Extensive inspections required for overweight landings with 360 ft/min or greater.

Beyond that, everything was said already in the posts above (reasons, risks & benefits etc).

[captain87]

For A320 the MLW is 61.000 Kg (134.480 lbs) ... with the following attenuating:

"In exceptional cases (in flight turn back or diversion), an immediate landing at weight above maximum landing weight is permitted, provided the pilots follows the overweight landing procedure"

But I'd like to remind that I have said that the overweight landing is always not recommended, and I haven't said that it's impossible ...

... Airbus write in the procedures to consider the use of the overweight checklists in extreme situations only !

Regards

[I-2021]

- 120 ft/min considered as normal touchdown rate
- 360 ft/min certified up to MTOW (that is the already mentioned 6 ft/sec)
- 600 ft/min certified up to MLW

I have got the same data for the 737, I do not remember if it is a JAR requirement rather than specific data for each airplane.

[captain87]

I think isn't important the rate of descent to accomplish an overweight landing. The only important thing is when a pilot have to perform it ???

good afternoon !

[I-2021]

But I'd like to remind that I have said that the overweight landing is always not recommended, and I haven't said that it's impossible ...


Captain87,

no one is going to perform an overweight landing if it is not strictly necessary. If you get into a critical condition which does not revert into an out of critical condition, you have no choice : you MUST land as soon as possible. Critical conditions are part of another subject that has already been covered a few posts earlier. A properly executed overweight landing will cause no big damages to the airplane.

[I-2021]

I think isn't important the rate of descent to accomplish an overweight landing. The only important thing is when a pilot have to perform it ???


Well if you perform a hard overweight landing you probably will need some of the fire brigade waiting for you beside the runway. So I would carefully manage my rate of descent.

[captain87]

For I-2021

I'd like to remind that each kind of failure, situation or condition require an immediate action ... but this action is specified by the checklists !
The impulsiveness is not tollerated aboard an airliner ... if there is a way to revert from an immeditely overweight landing to a delayed normal diversion with safe landing, this procedure MUST always be used !
Follow the checklists and you'll fly safely !

[An Paddy Eile]

My understanding of the regulations is that if the manufacturer does not or can not certify that the aircraft can land above MLW with a RoD less than 360 ft/min without structural damage, then a fuel jettisoning system must be installed. Hence, the very large long haul machinery needs to jettison because at MTOW they are substantially above their MLW.

By that logic, if the aircraft has a MTOW greater than MLW and it does not have a fuel jettisoning system, then landings are safe up to MTOW provided the RoD is controlled.

As many have said, you will not burst into flames immediately on impact if you are above MLW. Even if you land heavily while at MTOW, you will cause structural damage, but that does not mean that the wings fall off or the wheels go bouncing across the perimeter road and over the fence. I would much rather risk a technically written off fuselage than hang around in a hold on one engine for an hour or two while I burn off fuel. I would be inclined to add any failure, other than trivial ones to my list of failures that would warrant an overweight return.

Give me hydraulic trouble, electrical problems, engine problems, or of course the smoke or fire and I'll go back heavy every time.

[Charly]

captain87.

You're 19 years old. I believe you haven't sat in an airline cockpit before? I appreciate you being interrested and motivated, but please trust the statements given here (a compilation of the posts):

- An overweight landing is performed as soon as it gives the same or higher degree of safety than the continuation of the flight. (My operators OM-A)

- A320s are certified to land with a rate of up to 360 ft/min with MTOW!

- the rate of descent is important.

- Airbus does not say, that overweight landings are dangerous, because they aren't!

- Executed with a smooth touchdown, a long runway, not a lot of brakes and max reverse: no problem! One inspection, one signature from the mechanic - and you're back in the air.

Regards

[captain87]

The rate of descent is important for pressurization issues only , but it's relevant also for other issues: stopping the aircraft on the runway, brakes efficiency, gear strut damage etc. ... but this is another topic ...
A practical example:
The A320 QRH state that it's not recommended to land with a residual cabin differential pressure ... but if we have to manage a SYS 1 +2 failure and at the same time we are above the MLW (just after takeoff) ... what procedures are required ? ... it' all written in the QRH ... no hazardous procedures necessary !!!
I know that it's very simple to speak from a chair ... but this is our job !

[captain87]

I excuse with Charlie !
Unfortunately the humilty isn't my point of strenght ...
I have only 19 years, but what I say is originated from what I've studied
through the CBT, the FCOM's, the QRH etc.
Obviuosly I'm too young for operating aboard an A320, I hope to do it in a next future ...
I enjoy to share my aeronautical belief ...

[I-2021]

I'd like to remind that each kind of failure, situation or condition require an immediate action ... but this action is specified by the checklists !

True most of the time.

The impulsiveness is not tollerated aboard an airliner ...

It is the same with women.

if there is a way to revert from an immeditely overweight landing to a delayed normal diversion with safe landing, this procedure MUST always be used !

I would prefer to make an overweight landing but since it is better to land safely below MLW, then I will do it !

Follow the checklists and you'll fly safely !
I will !

Unfortunately the humilty isn't my point of strenght ...

No checklist for that...

Ciao.

[captain87]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Thank you !!! I've discovered a way for my character:
the humilty checklists !!!
Caution: Operate only before flight !!!

It's a very good gimmik !!!
Ciao

[boeingdream787]

B737-NG's....Manufacturer has CERTIFIED the airplane to do a MTOW minus 5% landing weight landing with a maximum of 1.3g's to be cleared by their technical team with a visual(al biet a thorough one...!!) post flight.
Cheers now and enjoy those days when u get to do one........they're the only ones worth flying for....!!:ok:
BD

[mutt]

FAR 25.1001 (If i remember correctly) Fuel Jettison System: states that an aircraft must be able to achieve the required approach/landing climb gradients within 15 minutes of takeoff.
All of our landing field length limit charts have weights much greater than the MTOW.
We stipulate that overweight landings are not permitted for commercial reasons, in all other cases crew must assess if they can satisfy the field length limit weights and approach/landing climb limits and follow the appropriate overweight landing checklist.



Mutt

[FLCH]

I've had to do an overweight landing on a 757-300 about 5 months ago.We air returned to SJU because of a reported vibration from one of the girls in the back. We were 20,000 lbs over MLW and no dump capability. My first officer did a superb job of landing on speed on target without an excessive rate of descent. We pulled back out of the gate about an hour and a half later after an inspection and headed home. It didn't seem like a big deal.(Except the paperwork of course!)

[dkaarma]

We air returned to SJU because of a reported vibration from one of the girls in the back

must... resist.... joke...

[captain87]

For my point of view an overweight landing have to be considered for medical and fire emergencies only. If we lose one engine just after takeoff, the procedure (on the A320) states that it's strictly necessary to dump as fuel is possible until reaching the MLW or below.
It's unacceptable that we perform an overweight landing if there are other ways to solve the problem in question.
On the A320 i.e., if one engine fails just after takeoff, the procedures say to mantain V2 +10 until reaching A/H-R/H (acceleration altitude/reduction altitude).Then the climb may be continued with a minum climb gradient of 300 ft/m. Then following, if applicable, the EO (engine out) SID. - LAND ASAP
The fuel dumping is mandatory !!! becouse there is time to do it .
In addition to this each other situation (emergency after takeoff) can be perfectly executed with fuel dumping (except medical or fire).
A question: are there other situations who give priority for landing ASAP without considering the MLW limits ? ... I think no ...
DO IT EVERY TIME YOU CAN !

[The Bullwinkle]

We air returned to SJU because of a reported vibration from one of the girls in the back.

Couldn't you have just confiscated her batteries? :E

The fuel dumping is mandatory !!! becouse there is time to do it

You are quoting a lot of stuff from the manuals, but as far as I know, the A-320 is not capable of dumping fuel !?!

[captain87]

No in fact, you're perfectly right !
I said a big fake !!!!
Airbus has forgotten to program it ...
Sorry ....

[captain87]

The true procedure for A320 in case of overweight landing are the following:

OVERWEIGHT LANDING

- LDG CONF ...................... DETERMINE
- LDG DIST ...................... CHECK
- PACK 1 and 2 ................. OFF or supplied by APU

In final stages of approach

- TARGET SPEED .................. VLS

At main landing gear touchdown

- REVERSE THRUST ........... USE MAX AVALIABLE

After nose wheel touchdown

- BRAKES ........................ APPLY AS NECESSARY

Landing complete

BRAKE FANS ....................... ON

Sorry for having said a fake before ! I was thinking at the same time to A320 and 767.
Unfortunately my absent-mindedness is a typical characteristic in some cases ...

[NigelOnDraft]

I am somewhat concerned by how "serious" an overweight landing is considered above...

As far as I know, any 2 engine aircraft will require effectively "Land ASAP", and at nearest suitable airfiield, after (even partial) loss of 1 engine - over MLW or not. Maybe there are exceptions... but for 757/767, A319/320/321 in my company this is the case. Some 767s (not all) can dump fuel, but only from Centre Tank, and there was no requirement to get to MLW before landing, or even dump to max extent possible. In a 3+ Engine aircraft, I can see MLW being adhered to for a simple (single) EO.

NB sometimes the MLW is commercial - our MLW limit has changed for the A319 a few times recently. It is strange to need to do the "overweight landing checklist" (and engineer's checks) one day, but don't need to do the next day same weight / same aircraft :ugh:

My main concern with overweight lanidng is the stopping / GA performance. The RoD / Inspection requirements are engineers' problems, not mine ;)

[Pennellino]

C87 are you studying A320 on Wilco manuals? :E

Regards

[FlightDetent]

NB sometimes the MLW is commercial - our MLW limit has changed for the A319 a few times recently. It is strange to need to do the "overweight landing checklist" (and engineer's checks) one day, but don't need to do the next day same weight / same aircraft :ugh:
I was under the impression that declared MTOW may change for economical reasons, perhaps we are referring to the same issue?

[captain87]

For Pennellino only

I study for A320 type-rating using all the material scheduled for a type-certification. This includes CBT, FCOM's, QRH, Airbus updates and notes, Professional Training Videos. But I'd like to underline that I do it (since 6 months) as secondary study since I'm now studying for ATPL Course.

I wouldn't write any kind of posts basing on the Wilco Manuals (an insignificant reference for who haven't a good knowledge of the aircraft).
A further consideration have to be done: do you retain that the Wilco A320 Family is a good product ?

I personally think no. Why ? No simulations of whole systems logic, no abnormal procedures application with flight simulator, no entire MCDU functions implementation etc.

Kind regards !

[john_tullamarine]

I was under the impression that declared MTOW may change for economical reasons

By whatever name known, air nav charges usually are predicated on MTOW. Hence some operators negotiate a "recertification" to reduce MTOW (and ANCs) where their operation doesn't require the higher MTOW value.

This will depend on regulator philosophy in the particular State.

[Mr Ree]

C87 - on Airbus, when necessary, the ECAM will tell you, in orange or red, to LAND ASAP.

[captain87]

Yes, is true, accordingly to the level of failure.

And so ? ... regards !!!

[Pennellino]

Well I don't know neither wilco (I don't play MFS for my training) nor the real airbus since I actually fly another type,anyway I'd suggest you to study just ATPL books and POH of aircraft on which you are learning VFR/IFR flight.You will have time to read a lot of stuff about airbus,boeing,fokker or whatever jet/turboprop you'll fly,doing it with a strengthened background and being assessed by professional instructors throughout ground and simulator sessions.Enjoy your 19 yo,meet girls and fly the Cessna/Piper doing your best to pass CPL exams.

Bye

[Tofu Racing]

Enjoy your 19 yo,meet girls and fly the Cessna/Piper doing your best to pass CPL exams.:ok:

On topic: in any time critical situation.

[captain87]

For Pennellino,

Probably you've reason but I am not able to let my flight manuals just neither for few seconds ... I succed to find the time to study becouse the fly is my life, my vocation ... While I study for A320 I enjoy and each thing I learn it's a great target for me ....
Besides I think that once finished the ATPL Course, a type-rating is necessary, and I've already chosen the A320.
Obviously I undertake himself for both studying the ATPL and A320.

I appreciate your suggestion and I thank you for having done it !

Kind regards !!!

[FLCH]

Quote:
We air returned to SJU because of a reported vibration from one of the girls in the back
must... resist.... joke...
Tee Hee, would be worse if it was from a guy....maybe too many beers on the layover !!

[Brianigham]

Guys,

I've got about 10 years on the 734's.( no jettison)

During sim checks, they like to point out both scenarios.

Occasions when you have the luxury of time, you of course reduce your landing weight.

When as the Commander, YOU DECIDE, that you have to land ASAP, then the landing weight becomes secondary, and a postflight issue. There is literature explaining and suggesting techniques for this scenario, ie an overweight landing.

I have , on occasion, when the actual TKOF weight is high, discussed and briefed and identified the procedure from the manuals at the preflight stage.

Techniques may differ between model and make, and it is important to realise this and be familiar with it.

I would not confine it to any specific scenario. Good judgement, that hopefully comes with that fourth bar, should be sufficient.

[alb.///]

... actually aircrafts are not certified for an auto land above MLW.
alb.///

[blackmail]

hello every one,
overweight landings seem a very interesting topic, judging from some threads above. i did some research into the matter & found what follows :
1) definition : overweight landing is when you land at max landingweigth + 2%.
2) certification issues for the manufacturers : A) aircraft structure must be resistent for a landing at Max Take Off Weight(MTOW) with a rate of descent of 360ft/min. B) at[ MTOW - 15min of emergency fuel ], the aircraft must meet min regulatory go-around gradients. if not, a jettisson fuel system is required.
3) for maintenance : A) landing at mlw + 2%, ok(not considered overwt as per definition). B) landing at > (mlw + 2%) & < (mlw + 5%), if soft ldg = rod <300ft/min = ok; if hard ldg = rod > 600ft/min, then inspection as per maintenance manual required. C) landing at >( mlw + 5%), then inspection required in all cases. all this info is retrievable from the on board data monitoring system in addition of faithfull techlog entries by the operating aircrew.
4) for operators & aircrew : operators need to provide their crews with overweight landing policy & technical guidelines from the manufacturer to actually perform a safe overwt landing.
here an example of such a policy:
overwt landing RECOMMENDED: -any malfunction that seriously affect airworthiness of the aircraft. - any condition where a delay in landing might be detrimental to safety. - one engine inop. - serious illness amongst crew or pax requiring immediate medecal attention. overwt ldg PERMITTED : - a malfunction not directly affecting the airworthiness of the aircraft. - an unplanned diversion. overwt ldg NOT RECOMMENDED: - complete hydraulic fail (affecting braking perfo). - tire burst/fail. - flight control troubles that adversely affect the handling of the aircraft. note: word "prohibited" is not used in this policy example.
last but not least, her some tech guidelines, once decision to land overwt is taken. e.g. for b738ng : use flap 30° for better margin to flap placard speed.
you may configure next flap as much as 20kts below normal maneuver speeds( again for increased margin to flap placard speed). burn fuel as much as possible(early gear down). long rwy, no tailwinds, or negative slopes, limit wind additives to flap placard speed, no long ldg, max reverse, use all rwy to minimise brake temp, no early turn off etc.
5) no auto lands
6) conclusion : always use common sense in dealing with such problems & if you safely can avoid them : do.
hope i did not write to many mistakes.
kind regards,
bm

[bubbers44]

Had a check airman at our big airline in USA ask what I would do if I took off from US and found non of the lavs were working on a trip to Europe. I said I would return and land. He said would you declare an emergency. I said no. He said if you land overweight you have to declare an emergency. I said OK. I didn't say I only said that to pass my check ride not that I would really do it. My friend declared an emegency because of this same thinking and got to watch all the fire trucks greet him when he landed overweight on a 13.000 ft runway. Do what ever you want. I try not to get paranoid over the simple things. Some day it might bite you but using logic worked for me. Now I am retired so it doesn't matter.

[The Bullwinkle]

My friend declared an emegency because of this same thinking and got to watch all the fire trucks greet him when he landed overweight on a 13.000 ft runway.

I would be so glad to see that! I bet he was too. I can't see the brakes from where I sit but the fire crews can, and although I don't know how much overweight your friends landing was, I would suspect that the brakes were very hot and there is a real possibility of a brake fire on any overweight landing.

[bubbers44]

It was a two hour flight so I dought he even touched the brakes above 80 knots like a normal landing but with 13.000 feet of runway you wouldn't need any brakes at all just reverse to a full stop with no brakes. Our airline encouraged us to land overweight. The day my radar crapped out on takeoff roll hitting a bump on the runway so dumped fuel on the 727 and came back and landed because it was required for the South American flight. We had to justify not landing overweight if it didn't cause more risk than landing overweight. I didn't agree with their thinking that landing overweight was as safe as landing at MLW so dumped a lot of fuel and came back and landed. The check airman that said we had to declare an emergency convinced me dumping fuel versus declaring an emergency was the way to go. I, personally, would just land overweight on a long runway and not use brakes until slow. If you get paranoid about they are out to get you then I hope you are close to retirement.

[FlightDetent]

blackmail: excellent piece of informaton! :ok:

By whatever name known, air nav charges usually are predicated on MTOW. Hence some operators negotiate a "recertification" to reduce MTOW (and ANCs) where their operation doesn't require the higher MTOW value. This will depend on regulator philosophy in the particular State. So does my employer. Question aimed at NoD was genuine and still stands: Is it really true that some operators change MLW for commercial reasons?

FD (the un-real)

[BOAC]

FD - like you, I have seen MTOM (tut tut:) ) change several times for 'commercial' reasons but I have never seen the MLM (tut tut:) ) change for that. Maybe airports/authorities are now charging on MLM?

[NigelOnDraft]

Question aimed at NoD was genuine and still stands: Is it really true that some operators change MLW for commercial reasons?I just drive the thing, don't pay the bills etc. ;) We are on our 3rd change for the A319 in approx a year, and each change alters the MTOW, Max Taxi Wt, MLW and MZFW... I am not sure which is the "driver" for change - one would think MTOW - but all seem to change for some reason :hmm:

[FlightDetent]

tut-tut: Ah, the sound of me feeling guilty :ouch: Yet it seems that Airbus limits the field for it's products to 9,81 ms-2 scenarios. This way they never will sell a nut to Virgin Galactic. :)

NoD: Puzzling, is it not? I operate comparative A319, certified with multiple MTOW. Provided by manufacturer, page in the bible, section limitations, gives multiple mass variants for max taxi and TOW. MZFW, minimum W and FLW remain unchanged for each of the MTOWs. A note reads: Multiple MTOW are certified. A placard fitted on the aircraft must reflect the current MTOW.

If I understand correctly, you provide services to a very cost savvy operator. All companies attempt to save any €-cent, but only few extend the efforts beyond "industry's best practice" such as fitting an extra pair of owerwing exits. The cockpit placard from last-year aircraft gives only MTOM, this year's (msn 3043&3094) have also MZFW and MLW included. Until today I presumed it was introduced for pilots to have all data at one spot, however now it seems that it may have been done on purpouse as probably some charges could be tied to MLW/MZFW.

To keep thread on track to it's final station, the Airbus Bible - section Limitations also reads: "In exceptional circumstances (inflight turnback or diversion), an immediate landing at weight above maximum landing weight is permitted, provided the pilot follows the overweight landing procedure."
Even if it did not, there's another base-rule we all surely do have coded in our DNA: ICAO Annex 2 to THE Convention: 2.4 AUTHORITY OF PILOT-IN-COMMAND OF AN AIRCRAFT: The pilot-in-command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command.

FD
(the un-real)

[rubik101]

During the pre flight brief I always remind the FO that the landing weight is not a consideration if we have a fire on board or an acute medical emergency.
87, you seem to have a strange grasp of the reality of flying an aeroplane. The pressurisation has nothing to do with an overweight landing or the rate of decent. You will find that reality will teach you that the books are for guidance. Nothing in them precludes the Captain from making any decision he feels will result in a safer outcome to any event he is confronted with.

[mutt]

87,

Your book collection is impressive, but you really have stop pretending to be an A320 pilot.

Mutt

[ant1]

Regarding Blackmail's post (#52)

There is an ongoing debate about what you mentioned.

Situation: yo see you are going to land MLW<LW<MLW+2%, operation normal and no need to rush.

What do you do?

1) No worries, just land at that weight

2) Do something to reduce your LW<MLW

3) This issue is not even worth being discussed

Thanks for your replies

[aviatorhi]

So a thread that has been dead for 1415 days and you dig it up... because?

[Morrisman1]

I am interested to see how C87 would cope with a situation such as what the Qantas pilots were faced with on the a380 incident. His checklists may as well be chucked out the window. As a student pilot I always have one thing that I prioritize for myself should an inflight emergency occur and that is "Fly the bloody thing" To hell with the rules if they get in the way of safety

C87, i sure hope you wake up and realize there is more to being a pilot than following what a book tells you so that if Im ever pax on a plane you are PIC on and an emergency happens you deal with it in the best to your ability rather than religiously following a manual written by someone whos seat isn't moving.

[BOAC]

Since someone has 'exhumed' this thread, I seem to recall that in the dim and distant days when I had to account and charge for Eurocontrol fees, they were based on MLW which may explain NoD's shenanigans. This 'new' MLW would be a planning value only and would have no effect on an 'overweight' landing, and indeed temporary increases would be allowable if required back to any value below structural. If that is the case I would expect, however, that BA would ensure that crews were aware of the STRUCTURAL limit rather than the 'commercial' limit to enable sound judgement to be made.

As a footnote, as said earlier, it always used to be the case that an a/c should be capable (ie not falling apart) of a 'reasonably controlled' re-landing up to structural MTOW.

[ant1]

aviatorhi, the reason is simple: I did a search and this thread and more specifically post #52 were very related to an ongoing debate we are having these days. I think I stated this in my introduction. I have tried to say it in different words and hope this has satisfied your curiosity.

If you feel like it you may now tell me if it is 1, 2 or 3. Your first answer seems to indicate that the third answer could likely be your choice.

For clarification this debate has nothing to do with charges. I can't see how the other answers relate to my question so 3 it is again.

Other opinions are welcome, thanks

[Pidge]

To answer the original question - when it is necessary.

[bubbers44]

Landing overweight in any airplane is no big deal but requires an inspection. Try to minimize the sink rate at touchdown and you won't break anything. Usually you have a reason because landing overweight is safer than burning or if possible dumping fuel. I only had to dump fuel once and it was for a radar failure that would not allow me to fly into a tropical storm area going to South America with no radar ATC. The radar was already written up and ground checked ok so I saw it fail on the runway right before liftoff so expected it to happen. Some times it is good to punish your airline for giving you a plane you know is still broke but maintenance signed off.

[ant1]

Pidge you say when it is necessary. I stated operation normal, no need to rush or save fuel for wx etc. So you seem to imply that if not necessary you don't land overweight.

Bubbers44

Same thing, I'm not talking about having some emergency or urgency situation. Would you land MLW<LW<MLW+2% without a good reason like it's no big deal?

Thanks

[Pitch Up Authority]

Overweight landings are incompatible with flight control problems and anything affecting the braking capacity.

It is always a good idea to have a look at the FPPM to get an idea what the Vmbe is at MTOW and at what weight you hit the max tire speed.

Often you will see that, unless it is warm and the field elevation is high you will have ample performance.

Using max brakes is often not a good idea. Use full runway to reduce the load on the brakes.

[Empty Cruise]

When would an overweight landing be considered the lowest risk option -apart from the obvious cases of ECAM/QRH stating "Land ASAP" or similar?

Unless my AFM says any different, my philosophy has always been when down to one engine / one genrator / one hydraulic system (braking requirements permitting) / medical emergency. Press problems, other required equipment or commercial considerations would not merit it - but given the design criteria applied to FAR/JAR25 aircraft, a properly executed OWL at a runway of suitable length and with suitable weather is a non-event.

[Sciolistes]

I'd be thinking very carefully about eroding landing and missed approach safety margins for a medical emergency.

[Empty Cruise]

Sciolistes,

I don't think anyone here has suggested you attempt landing overweight if you can't meet landing distance and missed approach requirements.

Sure - the margins will not be the same as if you landed at the same airport at MLM - but we operate our aircraft near the requirements often - taking off a couple of ton under RTOM or landing close to RLM. No pilots woth their salt would refuse operating close to the limit as long as you are positively on the safe side - the same principle should apply during a medical emergency.

Other than that, I agree with what I percieve your sentiment to be - namely that we should never consider endangering the aircraft or its occupants just because some poor soul has keeled over in the cabin.

[grounded27]

Most old FREIGHTDOGS know that an overweight landing is something that was allmost the norm as customers often padded their weights. May be a different story today but I have been on at least 2 flights that we had to divert early for extra fuel due to excess load. Also all aircraft are designed to specs well above what they are certified for, other than flight chararistics the landing is less likely to result in damage than on a light aircraft on a hard landing.

Loved watching old 74c's land using aerodynamic breaking, hell if you have the RWY they saved brakes and made their turnoff. Understand it is a taboo subject as procedure trumps skill these days.

I do not see where a heavy landing is much of an issue with narrow body aircraft, hell if you have the rwy length just add the speed you feel safe with. Once again skill over procedure that is not written into your operating manual.

[Sciolistes]

Empty Cruise,

Other than that, I agree with what I percieve your sentiment to be - namely that we should never consider endangering the aircraft or its occupants just because some poor soul has keeled over in the cabin.
Quite so sir and precisely my point. I agree that one could at least consider (carefully) an overweight landing for such a situation, but equally one must be able to determine when to reject such an idea.

Grounded27,

The idea that we don't actually know if we are overweight, given some dodgy cargo, isn't an argument. Obviously, you may already be unknowingly overweight when deciding to land knowingly overweight!

Evaluating when to deviate from procedure, is its self SOP. Nothing to do with flying skill, simply judgement of a specific situation.

[grounded27]

Evaluating when to deviate from procedure, is its self SOP. Nothing to do with flying skill, simply judgement of a specific situation.

Unfortunately judgement is a skill, when operating an aircraft it becomes a flying skill...

[ant1]

Ok overweights should be non event. Are you impliying that 2% overweight is not even considered overweight so you can do it any odd time you want without a good reason?

Or if you had the choice and no pressure of any kind would you burn that 2% weight?

[Empty Cruise]

Burn the 2%, Ant - MLM is just that, a maximum. Also, if you do it off base and depart again without the owerweight landing inspection, you'll have a very hard case to argue in court when summat happens to the aircraft brake/tyre/gear-systems 10 sectors later and they start looking at what the aircraft was doing previously. Might not have anything to do with cause and effect, but enough for the prosecution to pounce on...

[Christo]

C87 are you studying A320 on Wilco manuals?

Regards

Ouch :}

Christo

[ant1]

Empty Cruise as you may well have guessed I agree with you that this overweight has to be taken care of. The debate arises because our Operations Manual says that under 2% no report, much less inspection is required hence some pilots treat the issue as if LW<MLW+2% is NOT an overweight landing. Post #52 seems to go along the latter.

[FalcoCharlie]

In the past I have landed overweight with the 737. Reason was uncontrollable hot air coming from both packs (70c/50c) on a hot summer day. I tried to go high first to cool them down unsuccessfully. Was about 8 tons overweight on landing, used the whole (long) runway, no autobrake, flaps 30, full reverse used brakes only to exit.

The heat was so intense I had to open the cockpit door and keep it open while descending. When at low altitude I even turned left pack off. Brake cooling was checked for the landing weight, no issues if brakes applied blo 100 kts.

Of course the fleet chief pilot had to ask why I landed overweight, I replied I could not hold and wait for the first passenger to die or the avionics to fail to declare an emergency. I changed aircraft and continued. The inspection was done, I was flying the same aircraft the next day. Cabin sensor problem.

It really helps if the company supports a "captain's discretion" decision.

[bubbers44]

My earlier post dumping fuel in the 727 with a radar problem was when our major airline was encouraging landing overweight if it was as safe as dumping fuel. I couldn't see how landing overweight was as safe as dumping so did it. Never got called in on it because I think the FAA would have taken my side. My friend did the opposite in a 757 and landed overweight with the crash trucks out because of company policy. Go figure? If you return to the same airport you took off at you don't need to even bother with go around performance because you had it on takeoff. I know a lot of our Latin American flights with all their carry ons made us over MLW but on paper we weren't. I still think it is no big deal with plenty of runway. In 23,000 hrs of flying I have never come close to going off the end. I don't think any of you guys have either. We all try to stay legal but we aren't out there weighing the freight and baggage.

[grounded27]

The heat was so intense I had to open the cockpit door and keep it open while descending. When at low altitude I even turned left pack off. Brake cooling was checked for the landing weight, no issues if brakes applied blo 100 kts.



Why not go bleeds off under 10K?