View Full Version : 60 mins holding PH to avoid landing overweight Sun 5 October
Icarus2001
6th Oct 2014, 08:27
Does anyone want to share with the rest of the class any info about a Velocity callsign yesterday calling Perth approach and advising that they needed to hold for 60 minutes to avoid landing overweight. They were then apparently asked to CLIMB to FL 120 to hold, so the crew must have realised quite late :sad: that they were too heavy. Good pick up of course. Just wondered if it was winds, FMS, flat batteries in the calculator? Or was it an air return not requiring an immediate return to land?
megle2
6th Oct 2014, 10:57
Looks as though the answer is a clear "no"
Well If it was an A330 no probs landing over weight as long as you keep it less than 360 fpm on touchdown.
Engineers can sign it off easily. ( in fact if it's below 360 fpm I don't think any special checks are required? )
Printout of the landing data is available after shutdown.
My mob would be mighty annoyed if I wasted an hours gas reducing LW.:eek:
Must be more to the story?
Dehavillanddriver
6th Oct 2014, 21:53
Wouldn't have been a A330 - they depart below max landing weight most times - even with a full pax load.....
unseen
6th Oct 2014, 22:32
Does Virgin have an exemption to CAR 235(6)?
porch monkey
6th Oct 2014, 22:41
If they did, why would you hold?
unseen
7th Oct 2014, 08:17
If they do have an exemption then you would have expected them to possibly land overweight after considering all the factors.
If they don't, then you expect them to hold barring an emergency.
ACMS's answer indicated that an overweight landing is fine with the ONLY restriction being the touchdown ROD and any subsequent maintenance action required.
Therefore my question was designed to determine either:
1. They have one and there was some reason they didn't land overweight OR
2. They don't have one and there is possibly a lack of understanding by some about CAR 235(6).
Just because the Airbus aircraft have a QRH procedure for an overweight landing doesn't remove the requirements of CAR 235(6).
Nothing too exciting.
unseen
7th Oct 2014, 22:51
Interesting comment.
So if the cost of breaching a regulation is less than the cost of compliance then you would be happy to commit that breach?
What would CASA's lawyer say about that?
Does someone have a list of the regs it is cheaper to breach than comply with (asked with tongue in cheek).
You are correct about aircraft being able to safely land above max landing weight. The only problem is that it isn't legal other than in an emergency. I guess the PICs decision comes to down to their own view on the importance of compliance with the regs.
Happy Flying
Come in spinner
8th Oct 2014, 00:02
I think some people may need to have another look at the limitation section in FCOM
Some of us aren't Aussie operators......
What's CAR 235(6)?
Either way I'm guided my my FCTM FCOM etc written by Airbus.
But I do get your points.......a bit of a refresh done in the section.....
The joys of Pprune study!!