NG Overweight landing v Holding after a single engine condition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NG Overweight landing v Holding after a single engine condition
Hi
Just gauging opinion on the above.
Assuming a straightforward environment, Boeing overweight landing policy and no other factors. Aircraft above MLW have taken off at say 77T.
After a engine fire that was controlled, fire went out, How quickly would you want to get back on the ground. Would you hold to get below MLW or straight back on the deck? Or would the risk of what other damage the fire caused change your thinking process.
Also for a straight forward engine failure case. Same scenario.
Kind regards
Pin
Just gauging opinion on the above.
Assuming a straightforward environment, Boeing overweight landing policy and no other factors. Aircraft above MLW have taken off at say 77T.
After a engine fire that was controlled, fire went out, How quickly would you want to get back on the ground. Would you hold to get below MLW or straight back on the deck? Or would the risk of what other damage the fire caused change your thinking process.
Also for a straight forward engine failure case. Same scenario.
Kind regards
Pin
I haven't flown the 73 for a long time but on my current type (a twin Airbus) the SOP is to land asap if single engine. There's no problem landing above MLW provided the landing distance required is calculated in advance and confirmed adequate for the selected runway. Engineering just have to do an overweight landing check later, a minor issue considering you've just shut down an engine 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here,have a look at the link below,have found it in my files.
Happy reading.
AERO - Overweight Landing? Fuel Jettison? What To Consider
Happy reading.
AERO - Overweight Landing? Fuel Jettison? What To Consider
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: In Space
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing says land as soon as possible and an over weight is permitted, Landing distance will be the biggest factor in the case above. Minor factors to consider would be Brake cooling, runway inspection, if any engineering is available. Priority is to get the bird on the ground as soon as possible.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you indeed have an engine fire (extinguished or not), an overweight landing check is the least of your problems. It takes roughly a day's work to change the engine, and about 2 hours to do the overweight landing check. Brake cooling also doesn't play any part, since you're not going anywhere without an engine swap.
It also comes down to risk vs. benefit. What is the benefit of holding for couple of hours to get from MTOW to MLW on single engine? The only thing I can think of is to avoid overweight landing inspection and maybe to save the brakes a bit. The risks are more clear - you're flying the aircraft on its last remaining operative engine.
I'd say if you don't have a problem with the landing distance (including margin), personally I would land overweight after doing all the appropriate steps - NNC, decision making, NITS, etc.
It also comes down to risk vs. benefit. What is the benefit of holding for couple of hours to get from MTOW to MLW on single engine? The only thing I can think of is to avoid overweight landing inspection and maybe to save the brakes a bit. The risks are more clear - you're flying the aircraft on its last remaining operative engine.
I'd say if you don't have a problem with the landing distance (including margin), personally I would land overweight after doing all the appropriate steps - NNC, decision making, NITS, etc.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big question is, what do you want to do? You are now flying on one engine and data that shows you can land safely. What do you really want to do? How simple can it be?
PM
PM
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: In Space
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If its an inflight shut down I would consider holding until max landing weight. But, if its due to unforeseen circumstances i.e fire, severe damage then if performance allows get it on the ground.
B737900er If its an inflight shut down I would consider holding until max landing weight. But, if its due to unforeseen circumstances i.e fire, severe damage then if performance allows get it on the ground.
As there is no safety implication in landing overweight (there isn't in an NG, it's merely a matter of a couple of hours of procedural engineering inspection) why accept the demonstrable hazard not only of extended flying s/e but also risking a repeat of some unknown cause of the original shutdown? That's daft.
The advice to land ASAP is there for a reason.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: In Space
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I would like to stay on the runway at the end of the day and being heavy could hinder that especially if its tight to land there at max weight anyway.
My point is there are other factors to consider in making such a decision. Landing straight after without considering these factors could get you into a bigger mess. As I said in previous comments landing ASAP is the priority.
My point is there are other factors to consider in making such a decision. Landing straight after without considering these factors could get you into a bigger mess. As I said in previous comments landing ASAP is the priority.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Euroland
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I would like to stay on the runway at the end of the day and being heavy could hinder that especially if its tight to land there at max weight anyway.
