Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

60 mins holding PH to avoid landing overweight Sun 5 October

Wikiposts
Search
Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

60 mins holding PH to avoid landing overweight Sun 5 October

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 6th Oct 2014, 08:27
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,878
Likes: 0
Received 245 Likes on 106 Posts
60 mins holding PH to avoid landing overweight Sun 5 October

Does anyone want to share with the rest of the class any info about a Velocity callsign yesterday calling Perth approach and advising that they needed to hold for 60 minutes to avoid landing overweight. They were then apparently asked to CLIMB to FL 120 to hold, so the crew must have realised quite late that they were too heavy. Good pick up of course. Just wondered if it was winds, FMS, flat batteries in the calculator? Or was it an air return not requiring an immediate return to land?
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 10:57
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Further away
Posts: 943
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
Looks as though the answer is a clear "no"
megle2 is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 12:28
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,991
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Well If it was an A330 no probs landing over weight as long as you keep it less than 360 fpm on touchdown.
Engineers can sign it off easily. ( in fact if it's below 360 fpm I don't think any special checks are required? )

Printout of the landing data is available after shutdown.


My mob would be mighty annoyed if I wasted an hours gas reducing LW.

Must be more to the story?
ACMS is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 21:53
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Wouldn't have been a A330 - they depart below max landing weight most times - even with a full pax load.....
Dehavillanddriver is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 22:32
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does Virgin have an exemption to CAR 235(6)?
unseen is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 22:41
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If they did, why would you hold?
porch monkey is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2014, 08:17
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If they do have an exemption then you would have expected them to possibly land overweight after considering all the factors.

If they don't, then you expect them to hold barring an emergency.

ACMS's answer indicated that an overweight landing is fine with the ONLY restriction being the touchdown ROD and any subsequent maintenance action required.

Therefore my question was designed to determine either:

1. They have one and there was some reason they didn't land overweight OR

2. They don't have one and there is possibly a lack of understanding by some about CAR 235(6).

Just because the Airbus aircraft have a QRH procedure for an overweight landing doesn't remove the requirements of CAR 235(6).

Nothing too exciting.
unseen is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2014, 22:51
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting comment.

So if the cost of breaching a regulation is less than the cost of compliance then you would be happy to commit that breach?

What would CASA's lawyer say about that?

Does someone have a list of the regs it is cheaper to breach than comply with (asked with tongue in cheek).

You are correct about aircraft being able to safely land above max landing weight. The only problem is that it isn't legal other than in an emergency. I guess the PICs decision comes to down to their own view on the importance of compliance with the regs.

Happy Flying
unseen is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2014, 00:02
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think some people may need to have another look at the limitation section in FCOM
Come in spinner is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2014, 12:38
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,991
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Some of us aren't Aussie operators......

What's CAR 235(6)?

Either way I'm guided my my FCTM FCOM etc written by Airbus.

But I do get your points.......a bit of a refresh done in the section.....

The joys of Pprune study!!
ACMS is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.