Is this a good way to burn off extra fuel

[Vessbot]

I already posted the FAA reg, and it says "No person operating ... may take off ..."

Not "no person may plan to take off" and, oopsie daisy!, things didn't go according to plan..

[sonicbum]

Band a Lot,

Honestly I do not really understand how a regulator can allow to deliberately exceed an aircraft limitation or performance, it seems really odd.
Can You give us some examples of operational situation where Your employer/regulator will allow You that and under what regulations You are operating (EASA, FAA, etc..) ?
Thanks !

[solomanflyer]

we are living in a world where people trying to save energy and fuel,, but here fuel has been burnt to reduce the TOW...

[DaveReidUK]

Post #1 details the circumstances under which it was necessary to do so.

[overstress]

Ops manuals are typically approved by the governing authority. Could you please tell us which country you work in so we are aware of what country approves this.

Will we get an answer?

EASA. There you go.

[overstress]

if you know that you are currently overweight

How do you know? Did you put the aircraft on a scale at the holding point?

Key word/s are planned & deemed excessive - excessive should be described in the company approved manual.

It isn't in mine!

So your Company manual says you can disregard unburned taxi fuel, hence who cares ? We're super legal, let's exceed a limitation. You happily takeoff and a few hours later people working in your flight safety office get a nice red flag on the OFDM and call you for tea and biscuits. From there you learn to read the manuals, read the SOP and also "think" about what you are doing.

You work to your Ops Manual. I'll work to mine. What's an OFDM? And I DO read my manuals thanks, and think what I'm doing, or else I wouldn't be posting this stuff on here, would I?

[sonicbum]

Originally Posted by overstress

How do you know? Did you put the aircraft on a scale at the holding point?

Let's try again. I give you a load sheet, you have a current ramp weight of 302t and a take off weight of 300t all based on a taxi fuel of 2t. 300t is also your structural MTOW. You start taxi, and uh uh ! Happy days you get to go first in sequence having burned 500kg of fuel. Now 302t-0.5 = 301.5t. You are 1.5t above Your MTOW. You don't need a scale here, You need a 6 years old maths skills.

You work to your Ops Manual. I'll work to mine.

I will

What's an OFDM?

Onboard flight data monitoring.

[wiedehopf]

the driving point here is: it does not matter if the airplane is actually above MTOW.

you can't accurately calculate your current weight so you calculate a weight governed by certain rules ... which is the weight you compare to your MTOW.

if all the weights would be vs actual weights you could always say:
but i didn't have a scale so i didn't know for sure i was overweight so i packed two elephants more.

[overstress]

You don't need a scale here, You need a 6 years old maths skills.

I get it, no need to patronise. OFDM, as you put it, can only monitor based on inputted ZFW. As we both know, this is highly likely to be inaccurate anyway. My ops manual says minor exceedance is OK. Your example is flawed, it's unlikely for 2T taxi fuel, more likely to be burning contingency. I see no point in discussing this further as you don't work for the same company as me and I don't have to answer to you!

[sonicbum]

no problem

[JammedStab]

Apparently, Overstress is just making stuff up. He won't name the country or quote the manual where he says this is allowed. It is more like, he is just taking off a bit overweight. Probably not a worry as it is not monitored.

[Ozgrade3]

i would think that any skipper who sat on a taxiway or moved slowly with high thrust set would quickly attract the ire of airfield operations. Most taxiways are do not have re enforced shoulders. I have seen quad jets rip up long stretches of grass just at idle thrust.

[wiggy]

.Apparently, Overstress is just making stuff up. He won't name the country or quote the manual where he says this is allowed

He might be, he might not...

But FWIW and as I mentioned earlier our EASA compliant Ops manual allows it, and it is monitored.

[Band a Lot]

I think you will find it is the regulator that sets the "standard weights" of pax not the aircraft manufacturer.

So it wont even take a smart pilot walking past his passengers to notice if many/most or all pax are over weight.

Lets say 90% appear to be a bit fat as the pilot walked down the isle - no problem here it is perfectly legal. Because it has been approved by the regulator and data had been given to average weights on certain things - this case passengers.

Now I know many companies that run extensions, on engines ( I know it not a weight thing) that are approved because a company has developed a method that has been deemed acceptable (this can be trend testing and overhaul limit checks), The regulator also has approved methods to test colour blind pilots - but that's a different story.

Now it is certainly possible to have a approved system in place to handle small overweight conditions (so may just need to be recorded) - the over weight landing checks for instance depend on by how much over weight was the landing, a very small amount requires a very small inspection, a large amount is a different story.

FYI I have worked FAA, EASA, CASA and a few of the CAA's

[JammedStab]

Originally Posted by wiggy

He might be, he might not...

But FWIW and as I mentioned earlier our EASA compliant Ops manual allows it, and it is monitored.

But you won't write down the wording for us. I think then that it is a made-up story. Or not discovered during the audit.

[falconeasydriver]

Taking off overweight... A big no no in most airliners including the one I fly. With QAR data, we would be called by the safety department immediately.

Easy way around this, just input the zfw as 500kg lower into the FMC/FMS etc

Not that I'm an advocate of course

[pineteam]

Haha!! I never had a overweight take off situation but I have been a couple of time close to MLW due to tankering and I was thinking about what you just said. lol

[Band a Lot]

Do not remember if this is the one but RAM had an increased gross weight approved by FAA and a STC issued simply by re mark of the ASI + a flight manual suplement.

Serviceable ( non-TAS ) airspeed indicators - remarked
[ If TAS indicator is currently installed, consult with your RAM representative. ]
<li class="Body-Copy">Gross Weight Increase STC and Flight Manual Supplement
T310 P [ + 270 lbs. Useful load ] [ GW from 5,400 up to 5,670 lbs. ]
T310 Q [ +170 lbs. Useful load ] [ GW from 5,500 up to 5,670 lbs. ]

[JammedStab]

Originally Posted by falconeasydriver

Easy way around this, just input the zfw as 500kg lower into the FMC/FMS etc

The problem is...the documents are kept for a year and the CAA auditors where I fly are good at finding minute details.

[overstress]

JammedStab, thanks for questioning my integrity. My employer has a social media policy which I'm not about to break here just so you can know where I work. And I have never taken off overweight, I simply quote a company ops manual which is not available online except if you have a company login! To be clear, I'm not cutting and pasting, I paraphrase. Why would I make stuff up, life's too short.

If you don't like alternative views, why spend time on an aviation forum? Why not just accept that different operators in different countries have different policies and interpretations?