Overweight Landing

[vilas]

Hi guysRecently an A320 after takeoff from Guangzhou had a pressurisation issue (exact snag not known) So they turned back and to avoid overweight landing kept flying for three hours in given area by the ATC. OEM gives the overweight landing procedure but no specific situations in which you do it or not to do it. Normally it's executed in LAND ASAP situation. So may be this wasn't. So can we have some opinions?

[Zar_1]

Not a 320 pilot IRL (so take my opinion with a grain of salt :) )

Aren't most overweight landings (with F/CTL Systems nominal) considered rather trivial? Especially if it was a 320, and not a 321 for eg. with it's MUCH higher MLW?

[AerocatS2A]

Our SOP has a blurb on overweight landings. It basically boils down to "don't do it unless safety of flight is compromised." Pressurisation failure per se wouldn't be a reason to land overweight for us but a hole in the side of the fuselage probably would be.

[vilas]

Our SOP has a blurb on overweight landings. It basically boils down to "don't do it unless safety of flight is compromised." Pressurisation failure per se wouldn't be a reason to land overweight for us but a hole in the side of the fuselage probably would be.
Overweight landings are not done routinely when you find you burnt less fuel and are overweight. You are supposed to hold and burn it off. But when you taxi on one engine, do Flap3 approaches to save fuel then hold for three hours to avoid OW landing how does that work out against overweight inspection or some other maintenance expense?

[8314]

Do it….or don’t! That’s why you get paid the big bucks!

[sonicbum]

Hi guysRecently an A320 after takeoff from Guangzhou had a pressurisation issue (exact snag not known) So they turned back and to avoid overweight landing kept flying for three hours in given area by the ATC. OEM gives the overweight landing procedure but no specific situations in which you do it or not to do it. Normally it's executed in LAND ASAP situation. So may be this wasn't. So can we have some opinions?

HiVilas,

An overweight landing can be done if conditions arise in such a way that the flight cannot continue as planned due to tech problems, sick passengers or any other abnormal condition, it does not necessarily mean a LAND ASAP. If the OVW landing is carried out according to the published procedure an entry will be made on the ATL and a minor engineer inspection will be carried out such as printing the LOAD 15 report and based on that assessing is structural checks are needed or not. It’s not a big deal unless the aircraft was slammed on the runway of course.
With the scenario you are presenting the crew could have turned back, landed back overweight at departure aerodrome (unless landing performance was an issue) and have another aircraft ready to take the pax to destination well within 3 hours…

With my operator if the overweight landing was carried out with a touchdown rate of less than 360ft/min (and 1.7G I believe but I am not sure on this one have to check), only a LOAD 15 report is to be printed and if confirmed the aircraft is good to go.

[FullWings]

I can think of three main issues: structural (energy absorption capability of the gear), aerodynamic (flap limiting speeds) and braking (will they be up to it?).

In terms of the gear, unless you slam it in (which you can do at less than MLW) there are some quite generous assumptions and safety factors involved, so more for awareness than anything else. Aerodynamic? All the types I know have a OEI flap setting which has plenty of headroom at MTOW and at weights not too far above MLW would be able to use any setting you needed. Braking - you have figures in the QRH, so can plan for max reverse and a low brake setting if you need to, and select a nice long runway into-wind if possible.

In summary, you are outside normal ops but it’s not the end of the world. I suppose if I was faced with the situation tomorrow, I’d call up company/engineering and ask what they wanted me to do. If they said burn down to MLW, I’d drop the gear and pull the speedbrake to get it over with a bit quicker. If you were the owner/operator, you’d probably try and balance the likelihood of the aircraft getting broken (pretty low, never heard of this happening) against the cost in fuel, time, passenger redirection/slipping and engine hours to fly around until <MLW.

[k.swiss]

Landed A320 overweight once, was very apprehensive, came to touchdown was nothing but a normal landing. Slight floating tendency that’s it.. Take it with a pinch of salt, we were only 1T overweight. :8

[AerocatS2A]

Overweight landings are not done routinely when you find you burnt less fuel and are overweight. You are supposed to hold and burn it off. But when you taxi on one engine, do Flap3 approaches to save fuel then hold for three hours to avoid OW landing how does that work out against overweight inspection or some other maintenance expense?
Asking the wrong person. We don’t routinely do any of those fuel saving measures.

[MarkerInbound]

Boeing used to put out a quarterly magazine called Aero. The 3rd quarter issue in 2007 had an article about over weight landings that you can find online. They say that if you took off from a runway you can land on it and meet all performance requirements. In addition the airplane is required to be able to land with a 6 foot a second rate of descent at MTOW with no damage. They say most landings are 2-3 foot per second rate of descent there shouldn’t be any issues. There will be a requirement for an overweight landing inspection but they say it is up to the pilots to decide what the best course of action would be for the situation.

[iggy]

Maybe in China an overweight landing will automatically trigger an inspection from the CAAC (320 with a 0430 flight time destination and full load returning to departure aerodrome would always be overweight)? I could believe absolutely anything from the CAAC...

[sonicbum]

Maybe in China an overweight landing will automatically trigger an inspection from the CAAC (320 with a 0430 flight time destination and full load returning to departure aerodrome would always be overweight)? I could believe absolutely anything from the CAAC...

Very valid point. Maybe some folks with experience on that side of the world could share more insight on local customs in those kind of situations.

[BraceBrace]

They say that if you took off from a runway you can land on it and meet all performance requirements.

Dry runway. Interesting note in performance is the (no) use of reverse thrust. But to conclude, landing performance isn't usually the issue on narrow body aircraft.

There is another threat (impact rate of descent), and the question if you are in such time critical event you need to challenge that threat. In case of pressurization problems, you don't. You can fly safely, you just can't climb safely.

[oceancrosser]

Boeing used to put out a quarterly magazine called Aero. The 3rd quarter issue in 2007 had an article about over weight landings that you can find online. They say that if you took off from a runway you can land on it and meet all performance requirements. In addition the airplane is required to be able to land with a 6 foot a second rate of descent at MTOW with no damage. They say most landings are 2-3 foot per second rate of descent there shouldn’t be any issues. There will be a requirement for an overweight landing inspection but they say it is up to the pilots to decide what the best course of action would be for the situation.

I have twice landed a B767-300ER well over MLW. Once due to a Air Data computer failure and the other a Medical Emergency. Normal landings, using the whole 10.000ft runway to stop. Overweight landing logged, maintenance took care of the inspection and in both cases we left about an hour later. Minor event as long as you don’t plant it on the runway.

[tdracer]

They say that if you took off from a runway you can land on it and meet all performance requirements.
That's actually a certification requirement - it's called "Return to Land". Obviously for the scenario where you experience a major emergency during or right after takeoff.
Obviously you want the flight crew to be on their 'A' Game, and an overweight landing inspection will be required. But so long as you don't land long or 'plant' it on the runway it should be fine.

I was on a flight test 767 way back in the late 1980s - we'd been doing high gross weight stalls - and when were done we landed back at Boeing Field at about 375,000 pounds (IIRC, max landing weight was 320k) - no big deal (although we did fly back with the gear down to burn more fuel)...

[FlightDetent]

Very valid point. Maybe some folks with experience on that side of the world could share more insight on local customs in those kind of situations.

The CAAC is very scientific. Problems are the multiple echelons between the regulator and the line crews, that - same as anywhere else - go out of their limb to please the boss about wishes they dream he may have had and then apply 30% CYOA margin. Results can be ridiculous.

True, when punishing which is the part of the feedback loop like that or not, CAAC are ruthless and spare no time for micromanagement. Also achieve their goals.
​​​​​​
=====

Same as the Boeing article referenced already explains, Airbus has no technical objection for OVWT landing as long as performance figures are satisfied. The only dilemma is the legality of breaking the AFM LIM section.

Sad as this may sound, the best advice for today's aviator is to have the OPS/MX/FLEET take the decision jointly on the ground and have them deal with the fine print during their deliberations.

Safety margins are neither hurt nor improved by making an overweight landing on 10k+ runway.

For reasons beyond the scope here, it is completely unfathomable a B- registered
​​​​crew were not in contact with their AOC during any such event.
​​​​​
​​
​​​​


​​​​

[Rocket3837]

Hi guys,
I did a landing on A300-600 frieghter with wieght equal to MTOW minus 3 tons (no emergency) and everything went OK except that the reason for returning wasnot admired by the chief pilot...

According to Airbus, the aircraft can be landed with wieghts up to MTOW as long as the "overweight LDG" C/L is performed..... The governing factor in this case is that the pilot has to determine the max GA wieght. If the GA wieght is not satisfied then fuel dump (other than A320) should be done to bring landing wieght down to GA wieght.....

[FlightDetent]

Operational decisions, because we deciced it is better to do so, is probably the only reason where overweight landing cannot be made legally. Deliberate breach of AFM.

Indeed, not a case over which the
​​​ C/P would like to go burn fingers unnecessarily. Under EASA is still a mandatory reporting occurrence.

Other then that, your experience and explanations match the Boeing Aero article 100%.

[dream747]

Hi guysRecently an A320 after takeoff from Guangzhou had a pressurisation issue (exact snag not known) So they turned back and to avoid overweight landing kept flying for three hours in given area by the ATC. OEM gives the overweight landing procedure but no specific situations in which you do it or not to do it. Normally it's executed in LAND ASAP situation. So may be this wasn't. So can we have some opinions?

I don’t have a copy of the AMM but Vilas is there any way you have access to it? I believe the guidance in the AMM for Overweight landings says that if an A320 lands overweight landing below 1.7G, it is considered as a normal overweight landing (above 1.7G is considered hard overweight) and there’s no maintenance actions required.

If the above is correct, I assume an overweight landing on the A320 series is not a critical issue provided it is carried out properly within limits.

I roughly recall from the performance charts flying at 10,000 feet with flaps 1 and the landing gear extended the aircraft burns roughly 4T an hour. If you’ve taken off at 77T or so it still takes at least 2.5 hours to get your weight down to assuming a MLW of 66T. It’s an awful lot of time to be flying around.

[Orange future]

Hi guysRecently an A320 after takeoff from Guangzhou had a pressurisation issue (exact snag not known) So they turned back and to avoid overweight landing kept flying for three hours in given area by the ATC. OEM gives the overweight landing procedure but no specific situations in which you do it or not to do it. Normally it's executed in LAND ASAP situation. So may be this wasn't. So can we have some opinions?

In all of the countries I have flown in this would not justify an overweight landing in a bus or a boeing!

[pineteam]

Chinese carriers don’t care about fuel saving. Being safe at all cost is their top priority. Knowing how picky they are if you do an overweight landing (>1.79g is considered an hard landing in my outfit) ;I would just hold until below max landing weight. Did they hold with gears up to be in the air for so long? Holding at green dot speed with gears down on A320 CEO you will burn over 4T/hour

[vilas]

Chinese carriers don’t care about fuel saving. Being safe at all cost is their top priority. Knowing how picky they are if you do an overweight landing (>1.79g is considered an hard landing in my outfit) ;I would just hold until below max landing weight. Did they hold with gears up to be in the air for so long? Holding at green dot speed with gears down on A320 CEO you will burn over 4T/hour
They were not holding but flying around a given area. Since fuel is to be burnt it will do a quicker job to fly gear down closer to 280kts.
However not sure if aircraft could be pressurized because gear down for two hours unpressurised will drive passengers crazy. It's bad even with pressurisation.

[FlightDetent]

In all of the countries I have flown in this would not justify an overweight landing in a bus or a boeing! That's a bold statement exactly in the face of OEM guidance.

[FlightDetent]

Being safe at all cost is their top priority. Eeehh... everybody wished. IRL the single highest priority is being compliant. Not that different from what happens elsewhere, but yes they do go to extremes.

Your post (part not quoted) suggest the PIC may have had a decisive say, and that's a very odd vibe.

My take will be hugely unpopular, saying once you get to the marrow (having clicked the performance boxes) the decision tips around the legality of the AFM non-compliance.

If you feel time pressure, do it.

If you feel it is useless to wait, get it approved and then do it.

Wargaming (skipping the obvious):

Engine fail - yes.

Operational Re-routing - no.

Failure affecting certified state (a.k.a. 'non-MEL) - most likely yes.

====== This is a good one:

After successfuly fighting a power bank fire that turned not easy to dispose of, the remaining extinguishers are below dispatch limit as well as the number of CC PBEs left unused.

Pushing for the trans-pacific sector has become untenable, and you are headed for Guam that is 60 minutes away.

There are no injuries or health complications among anyone on board, but the passanger mood is very awkward. Clearly, the 2 charred seats will get a huge exposure once the aircraft lands.

OPS cannot be reached.

The predictions from FMS show that upon arriving overhead Guam the airplane is overweight by 6x final reserve fuel mass (i.e. 1 hr with gear down).

(A) The quickest landing can be achieved by flying to Guam at high ETOPS Mach, and make an immediate overweight landing. Getting ugly dirty on the descent and approach (without a slow speed technique, however) will reduce the overweight from 6x FRSF_weight to 3x FRSF_weight, no less.

(B, C, D) middle options, compromises. Sacrifice something at the expense of half-meeting multiple targets)

(E) Using high-power Mach, the origin airport which is your operating base can be reached. Located 1 hour beyond Guam, the time to reach it is precisely equivalent to time required for a landing below MLW at Guam. Other words, if MLW is to be observed, the passanger's origin and your home base can be reached without a time penalty.
​​​​
Let the difference between the quickest OVWT at Guam and the quickest MLW be 1 hour. You ARE turning back with 1 hr to the earliest landing, overweight.

======= show of hands? ====


​​​​

[ScepticalOptomist]

Eeehh... everybody wished. IRL the single highest priority is being compliant. Not that different from what happens elsewhere, but yes they do go to extremes.

Your post (part not quoted) suggest the PIC may have had a decisive say, and that's a very odd vibe.

My take will be hugely unpopular, saying once you get to the marrow (having clicked the performance boxes) the decision tips around the legality of the AFM non-compliance.

If you feel time pressure, do it.

If you feel it is useless to wait, get it approved and then do it.

Wargaming (skipping the obvious):

Engine fail - yes.

Operational Re-routing - no.

Failure affecting certified state (a.k.a. 'non-MEL) - most likely yes.

====== This is a good one:

After successfuly fighting a power bank fire that turned not easy to dispose of, the remaining extinguishers are below dispatch limit as well as the number of CC PBEs left unused.

Pushing for the trans-pacific sector has become untenable, and you are headed for Guam that is 60 minutes away.

There are no injuries or health complications among anyone on board, but the passanger mood is very awkward. Clearly, the 2 charred seats will get a huge exposure once the aircraft lands.

OPS cannot be reached.

The predictions from FMS show that upon arriving overhead Guam the airplane is overweight by 6x final reserve fuel mass (i.e. 1 hr with gear down).

(A) The quickest landing can be achieved by flying to Guam at high ETOPS Mach, and make an immediate overweight landing. Getting ugly dirty on the descent and approach (without a slow speed technique, however) will reduce the overweight from 6x FRSF_weight to 3x FRSF_weight, no less.

(B, C, D) middle options, compromises. Sacrifice something at the expense of half-meeting multiple targets)

(E) Using high-power Mach, the origin airport which is your operating base can be reached. Located 1 hour beyond Guam, the time to reach it is precisely equivalent to time required for a landing below MLW at Guam. Other words, if MLW is to be observed, the passanger's origin and your home base can be reached without a time penalty.
​​​​
Let the difference between the quickest OVWT at Guam and the quickest MLW be 1 hour. You ARE turning back with 1 hr to the earliest landing, overweight.

======= show of hands? ====


​​​​

Maybe I’m missing the gotcha, but return to origin seems an obvious choice to me.

[FlightDetent]

I tried to play a no-good-choice scenario, an attempt to show the OVWT debate might be paradoxical.

To illustrate my point, that OVWT can be only evaluated by performance and legal assesment. Any 'safety' is vague, fuzzy, and moreover the evaluation could tip to the opposite side with adding / removing just a tiny little bit of information.

Towards your itch:

The narrative claims that extended flight is not desirable with depleted extinguishers and lacking PBE coverage.

For the unpredictable, the choice is made to seek an early landing, 'safety reasons', technically picking a more conservative course of action - placing bigger margins from an hypothetical undesirable aircraft state by reducing the probability through limited time exposure.

Here is the discontent -

We chose to reduce the airborne time, because the ship is no longer equipped to fight an on-board blaze,

however, at the same time

We chose to extend the airborne time by 100% over what was necessary

. Where is the consistency, cannot stay airborne long enough but decide to stay airborne twice as long as necessary?

😉

[ScepticalOptomist]

I tried to play a no-good-choice scenario, an attempt to show the OVWT debate might be paradoxical.

To illustrate my point, that OVWT can be only evaluated by performance and legal assesment. Any 'safety' is vague, fuzzy, and moreover the evaluation could tip to the opposite side with adding / removing just a tiny little bit of information.

Towards your itch:

The narrative claims that extended flight is not desirable with depleted extinguishers and lacking PBE coverage.

For the unpredictable, the choice is made to seek an early landing, 'safety reasons', technically picking a more conservative course of action - placing bigger margins from an hypothetical undesirable aircraft state by reducing the probability through limited time exposure.

Here is the discontent -

We chose to reduce the airborne time, because the ship is no longer equipped to fight an on-board blaze,

however, at the same time

We chose to extend the airborne time by 100% over what was necessary

. Where is the consistency, cannot stay airborne long enough but decide to stay airborne twice as long as necessary?

😉

A good scenario to think about for sure!

If the scenario left me with NO cabin fire fighting capability it may be a different decision making process…

[Rico_Corp]

Obviously the OVERWEIGHT LANDING procedure is an ABN procedure. Regardless, the FCTM “techniques” manual advises that an overweight landing can be performed "in exceptional conditions" (in flight turn back or diversion), provided the flight crew follows the OVERWEIGHT LANDING procedure. Pretty simple really….

[dream747]

I tried to play a no-good-choice scenario, an attempt to show the OVWT debate might be paradoxical.

To illustrate my point, that OVWT can be only evaluated by performance and legal assesment. Any 'safety' is vague, fuzzy, and moreover the evaluation could tip to the opposite side with adding / removing just a tiny little bit of information.

Towards your itch:

The narrative claims that extended flight is not desirable with depleted extinguishers and lacking PBE coverage.

For the unpredictable, the choice is made to seek an early landing, 'safety reasons', technically picking a more conservative course of action - placing bigger margins from an hypothetical undesirable aircraft state by reducing the probability through limited time exposure.

Here is the discontent -

We chose to reduce the airborne time, because the ship is no longer equipped to fight an on-board blaze,

however, at the same time

We chose to extend the airborne time by 100% over what was necessary

. Where is the consistency, cannot stay airborne long enough but decide to stay airborne twice as long as necessary?

😉

In deciding not to continue on with a presumably long flight over the Pacific with limited diversion options, we are trying to mitigate a fire onboard risk. But it doesn't necessarily mean it is a land asap situation.

If the reason or argument was not to fly a single minute longer than necessary, then principally you'd have to choose the nearest possible airfield - anything that comes your way before Guam?

[fdr]

Max Landing Weight (MLW/MLM) is a TCDS Limitation of the aircraft. While it is possible to exceed it as is the case with every limitation it is still a legal limitation of the aircraft, and to randomly decide to ignore a limitation places your license at risk. You can land overweight when it is a result of a procedure that calls for a land as soon as possible, or where there is a time critical event that affects safety of life. At every other occasion, the pilot is hanging in the breeze on liability as they have breached a pretty basic legal requirement, that is to fly the aircraft within it's limitations. That is an ICAO Annex requirement, so Orange is quite correct, his comment is not courageous, it is legally correct. Are there times that an OWL is justified? absolutely. If the failure to pressurise had resulted in a medical condition, you would be justified to conduct an OWL. To do an OWL, to deliberately breach a certification limitation of the aircraft can be considered reckless operation, (see FAR 91 or FAR 1.3 for a definition). If there is smoke, fill your boots, fire? same... an engine failure? depends, read the blurb.... sometimes absolutely, other times, might depend.

OWL for expediency should have the decision maker in front of the accountable manager explaining his/her/other actions.

Please also note that (IIRC) no OEM conducts auto land demonstrations above MLW(MLM), and most aircraft will have a caution or warning to that effect.

Is it possible to do an OWL, of course it is, assuming the pilot is not a drooling imbecile. Yet, every day, we manage to smack the ground with apparently qualified pilots with very high impact loadings within the normal envelope of the aircraft, so we can't guarantee not breaking planes by actually flying them well even when in the normal case. The OWL issue is a legal issue, not one of ego or competency, and any ICAO SARPS compliant regulator should have a serious concern if the guidance of an airline is "she'll be right, just don't stuff it up" in respect to wilfully disregarding a certified limitation. The follow up question from the regulator is "and what other limitations and regulations do you wilfully disregard?".

If it is a time critical safety matter, fill yer boots, if it is for convenience, log the overtime, IMHO.

[fdr]

Obviously the OVERWEIGHT LANDING procedure is an ABN procedure. Regardless, the FCTM “techniques” manual advises that an overweight landing can be performed "in exceptional conditions" (in flight turn back or diversion), provided the flight crew follows the OVERWEIGHT LANDING procedure. Pretty simple really….

An airturn back and a diversion are by definition not exceptional conditions, they are planned contingencies. Conducting an OWL due to inconvenience of a schedule disruption that may otherwise occur isn't going to work when the feds start looking at your license and whether you are in violation of air law. Better have a really good time critical justification to break the law.

[vilas]

Please also note that (IIRC) no OEM conducts auto land demonstrations above MLW(MLM), and most aircraft will have a caution or warning to that effect.
Safety first issue #12 July 2011 Automatic landings in daily operations
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1066x412/screenshot_20230522_164005_2_c50fe07e2d4ab774dd637df596d4666 383e11c29.png

​​​​​​​