Old 26th Feb 2019, 16:36
  #32 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,847
A lesson from this debate is not to invent concerns / scenarios or use unfounded ‘certainties’ or ‘guesses’ to justify a course of action.

Based on certification tests, tyres do not ‘melt’, rarely suffer blow outs (antiskid still works), but more likely the protective fusible plugs will deflate them.
Don’t believe all that you see on web videos. Were the tests shown certification successes or otherwise? Many of those RTOs could have been acceptable, which includes allowable deflating tyres and brake fires which must be ‘contained’ without intervention for 5 mins.
Fuel concerns, etc, in abnormal circumstances have been considered in certification, have been flown, and as necessary, demonstrated.
Brakes will be used up to their limit, there may be apparent fire, or brake damage … but that’s inconsequential to the safety decision in planning an overweight landing.

‘A gentle touchdown’; unless your normal landings are greater than 6 ft/sec, then an overweight landing can be flown as a normal landing.
Don’t invent new procedures where none are required.
Don’t create concerns which could distract from the choice of the safest course of action.
safetypee is offline