Originally Posted by
TwinJock
Shocked when I listened to the ATC transcript. The crew sounded like a bunch of amatures.
Holding for hours on 1 engine. And this is considered a safer option than landing overweight?
Originally Posted by
Jet Jockey A4
Yes I don’t understand why on a twin engined aircraft that can land overweight, a crew would decide to burn or dump
fuel for one or even two hours.
I have several friends now retired from Air Canada for several years that flew the 767 and Airbus and during their career there they tell me that the policy was to land immediately and they are dumbfounded by the last two events they read about (787 and 767) that the crew decided to stay airborne instead of landing immediately.
I suggest that both you and the retired captains are not analyzing things properly. I don't have a 767 FCTM but the 747 one likely has the same statement.....
"Boeing airplanes are designed so that the landing gear and remaining tire(s) have adequate strength to accommodate a flat nose gear tire or main gear tire. When the pilot is aware of a flat tire prior to landing, use normal approach and flare techniques, avoid landing overweight and use the center of the runway."
Why do you think that Boeing says this? Only three out of four tires are available on that bogie. The aircraft is overweight and it will have a higher touchdown speed. There is a significant chance that there could be more tires lost. How will that affect directional control and stopping capability. Even if the remaining tires are not affected, how will braking be? And, there is no reverse from one engine in this case. Don't you think that it would be higher risk to land overweight with both deceleration devices(brakes and reverse) degraded.
There seems to be this panic mindset that one has to land ASAP(airbus term)/at the nearest suitable airport because that is what the manual says. But this airplane was flying just fine. Why not burn off the fuel.
During the time that they were above their MLW, no airport in the world was suitable unless there was another overriding factor(which there was not) because the rest of the tires could easily blow out leading to significant directional issues or exacerbating deceleration issues. Once they were down to MLW, Madrid became their nearest suitable airport.
In fact based on their subsequent actions, it is a damn good thing they burned the extra fuel. Why? Because of the subsequent decision to accept a tailwind landing on a relatively short runway instead of landing into wind on the runway with the much longer LDA. Listen to the end of the ATC tape, they state that their brakes are very hot. Not good if hydraulic fluid is leaking, a distinct possibility in this incident, and evidence that they could have had an increased likelihood of an overrun
Finally from the FCTM, in part....
"Situations Beyond the Scope of Non-Normal Checklists It is rare to encounter in-flight events which are beyond the scope of the Boeing recommended NNCs. These events can arise as a result of unusual occurrences such as a midair collision, bomb explosion or other major malfunction. In these situations the flight crew may be required to accomplish multiple NNCs, selected elements of several different NNCs applied as necessary to fit the situation, or be faced with little or no specific guidance except their own judgment and experience."
Judgement and experience might lead one to decide that there is little risk in continuing to fly and reduce weight due to the significant risk that will be encountered on landing. The other engine is almost certainly not going to fail.