Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

MTOW and RTOW

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

MTOW and RTOW

Old 19th May 2012, 12:35
  #1 (permalink)  
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
beinghuman is offline  
Old 19th May 2012, 12:51
  #2 (permalink)  
 
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.
de facto is offline  
Old 19th May 2012, 13:13
  #3 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,178
Received 92 Likes on 61 Posts
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).
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 00:27
  #4 (permalink)  
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!
parabellum is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 05:50
  #5 (permalink)  
 
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.
In general true, however for stuff like airway or landing fees the MTOW can be flexible again. We use around 8 to 10 different MTOWs and select the lowest usable for each flight. That MTOW is then the basis for all kind fees associated with that flight. The highest usable one is the certified one, which does not necessarily have to be the structural limit, some of our 738 have around 75t, others over 78t. Just a matter of certified max weight which can be changed whenever there is any need.
Denti is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 05:52
  #6 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,178
Received 92 Likes on 61 Posts
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 ?
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 06:26
  #7 (permalink)  
 
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...
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 06:34
  #8 (permalink)  

Bottums Up
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: dunnunda
Age: 66
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Capt Claret is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 08:42
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
Originally Posted by Denti
We use around 8 to 10 different MTOWs and select the lowest usable for each flight.
Agree JT, this sounds a bit dodgy. Denti, do you mean that you have 8-10 aeroplanes with different MTOWs or one aeroplane with 8-10 MTOWs? My employer has done this in the past, but the reduced MTOW (one only) was promulgated in the AFM and not changed at the drop of a hat. Obviously though, the cost of doing so was made up in reduced landing fees.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 08:50
  #10 (permalink)  
 
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.

Last edited by 763 jock; 20th May 2012 at 08:51.
763 jock is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 09:51
  #11 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,178
Received 92 Likes on 61 Posts
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.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 10:26
  #12 (permalink)  
 
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.
172_driver is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 10:34
  #13 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,178
Received 92 Likes on 61 Posts
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.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 12:10
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
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.
That's what you get when those with degrees in "underwater basket weaving" take over.

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'
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 13:06
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: An Island Province
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
alf5071h is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 14:19
  #16 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,178
Received 92 Likes on 61 Posts
Now, that story I prefer and is consistent with a number of Oz aircraft whose AFMs were amended by my good self for just that purpose.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 18:49
  #17 (permalink)  
 
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
Don Coyote is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 19:12
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: away from home
Posts: 887
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
oceancrosser is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 20:43
  #19 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,178
Received 92 Likes on 61 Posts
Obviously the UK was more innovative than other Regulators. Quite amazing.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 21:04
  #20 (permalink)  
 
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.
Denti is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.