MTOW and RTOW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: India
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MTOW and RTOW
Hello Guys,
Can you'll explain the difference between MTOW and RTOW while calculating ?
For example Airbus A320 has a MTOW of 73500 Kg.
If the question asks about the MTOW. Calculating and considering all the QNH, AC and other corrections, if the Max take off weight comes to 78500 kg. What is my RTOW and MTOW here ?
I was checking an F'COM and the examples to calculate the MTOW, left the answer at 78500 kg. Shouldn't it be 73500 kg cause that's the max we can carry anyway ? Little confused here.
Thanks in advance
Can you'll explain the difference between MTOW and RTOW while calculating ?
For example Airbus A320 has a MTOW of 73500 Kg.
If the question asks about the MTOW. Calculating and considering all the QNH, AC and other corrections, if the Max take off weight comes to 78500 kg. What is my RTOW and MTOW here ?
I was checking an F'COM and the examples to calculate the MTOW, left the answer at 78500 kg. Shouldn't it be 73500 kg cause that's the max we can carry anyway ? Little confused here.
Thanks in advance
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MTOW is your Structural max take off weight(real weight).
The RTOW (Regulated) is your Performance adjusted take off weight which must be below your runway/obstacle level off/climb limit weight.
The adjustments are qnh,bleeds OFf,EAI ON.....
On a long runway you could see that your RTOW limit is well above your MTOW,up to 82T for a 738.
The RTOW (Regulated) is your Performance adjusted take off weight which must be below your runway/obstacle level off/climb limit weight.
The adjustments are qnh,bleeds OFf,EAI ON.....
On a long runway you could see that your RTOW limit is well above your MTOW,up to 82T for a 738.
Moderator
Depends on how you do the sums from the AFM.
MTOW is a hard limit regardless of other considerations and is tied up with the basic aircraft certification basis.
RTOW is the limiting takeoff weight calculated for a particular runway under particular specified conditions.
Generally, though, the published RTOW will be truncated for other limiting considerations for convenience.
Usually the only time you might see a performance weight greater than MTOW will be in relation to climb limits where the calculated figure is given to facilitate interpolation - it doesn't make much sense to interpolate between figures where one has already been truncated due to other limits. In this situation the interpolated figure then is compared to other limits in the normal manner to determine the overall limiting figure.
Either way, the authorised TOW will not exceed the MTOW (unless per Regulatory one-off approval as, for instance, may occur for ferry operations).
MTOW is a hard limit regardless of other considerations and is tied up with the basic aircraft certification basis.
RTOW is the limiting takeoff weight calculated for a particular runway under particular specified conditions.
Generally, though, the published RTOW will be truncated for other limiting considerations for convenience.
Usually the only time you might see a performance weight greater than MTOW will be in relation to climb limits where the calculated figure is given to facilitate interpolation - it doesn't make much sense to interpolate between figures where one has already been truncated due to other limits. In this situation the interpolated figure then is compared to other limits in the normal manner to determine the overall limiting figure.
Either way, the authorised TOW will not exceed the MTOW (unless per Regulatory one-off approval as, for instance, may occur for ferry operations).
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just remember, when applying weight penalties for take off due some unserviceability, like anti-skid U/S, for instance, that the penalty comes off the WATlimit for that runway, (Weight, Altitude & Temperature), which can be well in excess of the MTOW and does not come off the MTOW unless otherwise stated in the AFM.
Saw a flight cancelled once because the penalty was applied to the MTOW and not the WAT limit, when the WAT limit was well in excess of the MTOW and a max weight take off was possible, subject to landing performance of course, which in this case was an even longer runway!
Saw a flight cancelled once because the penalty was applied to the MTOW and not the WAT limit, when the WAT limit was well in excess of the MTOW and a max weight take off was possible, subject to landing performance of course, which in this case was an even longer runway!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MTOW is a hard limit regardless of other considerations and is tied up with the basic aircraft certification basis.
Moderator
That's the first time I've heard of that approach. In my experience, Regulators have been amenable to a permanent reduction in AFM MTOW for this reason .. but not one which, in your story, appears to change by the flight ?
Could we have a bit more of the story, please ?
Could we have a bit more of the story, please ?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@parabellum, not an uncommon mistake...PERFORMANCE penalties are deducted from the PERFORMANCE limiting weight..RTOW....easy way to avert the error you witnessed...
Bottums Up
B717, MTOW 53,525 kg.
RTOW values can be in the mid 54s or better.
A CDL/MEL performance degradation would be subtracted from the RTOW value, thus in many cases, MTOW may not be affected even though there is a performance penalty.
RTOW values can be in the mid 54s or better.
A CDL/MEL performance degradation would be subtracted from the RTOW value, thus in many cases, MTOW may not be affected even though there is a performance penalty.
Originally Posted by Denti
We use around 8 to 10 different MTOWs and select the lowest usable for each flight.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My company also does this. We have a declared (767) weight that is about 25000 kgs below the structural max. This is done to reduce landing fees etc.
If they then need the higher weight for long haul ops, they declare it on the day.
If they then need the higher weight for long haul ops, they declare it on the day.
Last edited by 763 jock; 20th May 2012 at 08:51.
Moderator
I guess no reason why not .. other than the airport owners and airways folk who are losing dollars. Intriguing way of moving the walnuts around.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My airline also has a flexible MTOW system to reduce fees. Three different settings on the B738. As late as yesterday landed with one MTOW and departed with another. A maintenance action required during turnaround, takes 2 min.
Moderator
I'm utterly amazed that the bean counters in the service organisations have let that happen. I guess that the Industry, eventually, will bear little resemblance to what it was 30-50 years ago.
I'm utterly amazed that the bean counters in the service organisations have let that happen. I guess that the Industry, eventually, will bear little resemblance to what it was 30-50 years ago.
Changing MTOWs in 2 minutes to avoid landing fees. I love it!
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 20th May 2012 at 14:30. Reason: spelin'
IIRC, operators are not allowed to chop and change MTOW to alleviate airport fees.
This may be an old interpretation (UKCAA / JAA days), but way back operators could apply for one change (a reduction) in MTOW which resulted in adding an amendment to the AFM. This became the legal MTOW for landing fees etc. An airport etc could ask to see the AFM, and the landing fees charged accordingly.
There should be JAR / EASA guidance on the issue somewhere.
This may be an old interpretation (UKCAA / JAA days), but way back operators could apply for one change (a reduction) in MTOW which resulted in adding an amendment to the AFM. This became the legal MTOW for landing fees etc. An airport etc could ask to see the AFM, and the landing fees charged accordingly.
There should be JAR / EASA guidance on the issue somewhere.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: England
Age: 61
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Details of VMTOW found at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200920.pdf
I was recently told that Eurocontrol is dropping the flex weight charging and will charge based on the actual highest MTOW of the particular aircraft, and that a lot of European airports are moving towards same.
Hence the benefits of the flex weights are eroding in the EASA area.
Hence the benefits of the flex weights are eroding in the EASA area.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, we are not governed by the UK CAA, just another european CAA. Funny enough, there are a couple airplanes in our fleet that do not have flex MTOWs, for those we always have to use the actual MTOW, from what i remember those were not build for us and are leased in from external sources.
About AFMs, there is none on board anymore, the EFB contains a generic AFM for the 737, but not specific for the airplane in question, the AFM is not part of the normally used documentation anyway. There might be a storage space somewhere in the headquarter for all those original AFMs, but somehow i doubt it.
I guess as soon as there can be no money saved by the flex weight thing the company gonna drop it, as the administration of the whole thing costs money too.
About AFMs, there is none on board anymore, the EFB contains a generic AFM for the 737, but not specific for the airplane in question, the AFM is not part of the normally used documentation anyway. There might be a storage space somewhere in the headquarter for all those original AFMs, but somehow i doubt it.
I guess as soon as there can be no money saved by the flex weight thing the company gonna drop it, as the administration of the whole thing costs money too.