Engine failure in Tyumen
If you took off from a runway you can land on it. If you are under the accelerate/stop weight and the second segment climb weight you’ll be good for landing distance and approach climb limits. Don’t know if the Russians have the “in an emergency the pilot in command may deviate from any rule” to meet the emergency rule.
Max landing weight is a normal dispatch and operating limit that typically does not apply in certain non-normals. Loss of thrust would be one of those cases. You don’t fly around on one engine just to save someone some additional maintenance tasks post-landing. FFS.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max landing weight is a normal dispatch and operating limit that typically does not apply in certain non-normals. Loss of thrust would be one of those cases. You don’t fly around on one engine just to save someone some additional maintenance tasks post-landing. FFS.
Only half a speed-brake
Discussed multiple times. I have no data to dispute the statement, so at face value: Though we may commonly see that, we really should not be. One of the threads linked a cover-all article by Boeing 777 expert, which went a really long way not to openly say "reducing weight to MLW after a failure resulting to an expedited landing is stupid." Kind of eating a pie.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont really see the issue here, engine fails you go to the hold work checklists and prepare for landing on one engine, if that needs burning off fuel to prevent an overweight landing then fine why is it an issue to burn fuel off on one engine?? We are allowed 1 hour flight time on one engine so whats the problem?
Makes me laugh damed if you do and damed if you dont, love to see the comments if someone landing over MLW single engine and had a gear collapse/ overrun.
Makes me laugh damed if you do and damed if you dont, love to see the comments if someone landing over MLW single engine and had a gear collapse/ overrun.
Some people have short memories.
It's only been 6 months since another SSJ-100 (Aeroflot) made an immediate return for an overweight landing, bounced, broke the main gear, punctured the fuel tanks, and killed 41 in the ensuing fire.
One month ago today (Sat.) criminal charges were filed against the captain of that flight.
Who thinks (or doesn't think) that factored into the Yamal crew's decision?
Some engine-outs are immediate "MAYDAY" situations - and some are not. Gotta take them as they happen.
It's only been 6 months since another SSJ-100 (Aeroflot) made an immediate return for an overweight landing, bounced, broke the main gear, punctured the fuel tanks, and killed 41 in the ensuing fire.
One month ago today (Sat.) criminal charges were filed against the captain of that flight.
Who thinks (or doesn't think) that factored into the Yamal crew's decision?
Some engine-outs are immediate "MAYDAY" situations - and some are not. Gotta take them as they happen.
Some people have short memories.
It's only been 6 months since another SSJ-100 (Aeroflot) made an immediate return for an overweight landing, bounced, broke the main gear, punctured the fuel tanks, and killed 41 in the ensuing fire.
One month ago today (Sat.) criminal charges were filed against the captain of that flight.
Who thinks (or doesn't think) that factored into the Yamal crew's decision?
Some engine-outs are immediate "MAYDAY" situations - and some are not. Gotta take them as they happen.
It's only been 6 months since another SSJ-100 (Aeroflot) made an immediate return for an overweight landing, bounced, broke the main gear, punctured the fuel tanks, and killed 41 in the ensuing fire.
One month ago today (Sat.) criminal charges were filed against the captain of that flight.
Who thinks (or doesn't think) that factored into the Yamal crew's decision?
Some engine-outs are immediate "MAYDAY" situations - and some are not. Gotta take them as they happen.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saves the mechanics from having to do an overweight inspection so that they can 'quick turn' (relaunch ASAP). :-/ <sarcasm
If it's an ETOPS airplane shouldn't they just go 'round and 'round in circles until they reach their ETOPS certification time limit?
If it's an ETOPS airplane shouldn't they just go 'round and 'round in circles until they reach their ETOPS certification time limit?
No, but it is a factor that can't be ignored. Force = mass x acceleration. 10% additional mass = 10% additional force on the gear - whatever other factors were involved. Think "straw that broke the camel's back."
Tha majority of accidents are not "due to" any single factor.
Tha majority of accidents are not "due to" any single factor.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was simply offering information that burning off or jettisoning fuel beyond the amount required to meet approach climb requirements after an engine failure is done quite a bit. I'm not defending or criticizing the practice.
Only half a speed-brake
That is a knowledgeable angle. The weight to meet approach climb gradient (or landing) will be quite higher than the mostly (?) structural MLW. Let alone the reduced operational one. Am I mistaken?
Last edited by FlightDetent; 4th Nov 2019 at 01:43.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct that will almost always be the case. For medium and long range airplanes there is typically a significant difference between the max takeoff weight and the max landing weight. For such airplanes, the weight at which the engine out approach climb gradient requirement can be met is quite a bit higher than the max landing weight, and in fact fairly close to the max takeoff weight. The design regulations require the airplane to be able to meet those climb requirements within 15 minutes after takeoff. (Note that the landing climb requirement is an all-engines operative case.)
I only mentioned getting below the performance limited weight to point out that I've seen quite a few reports where the crew chose to burn or jettison fuel off to get well below that weight.
I only mentioned getting below the performance limited weight to point out that I've seen quite a few reports where the crew chose to burn or jettison fuel off to get well below that weight.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: dublin
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont really see the issue here, engine fails you go to the hold work checklists and prepare for landing on one engine, if that needs burning off fuel to prevent an overweight landing then fine why is it an issue to burn fuel off on one engine?? We are allowed 1 hour flight time on one engine so whats the problem?
Makes me laugh damed if you do and damed if you dont, love to see the comments if someone landing over MLW single engine and had a gear collapse/ overrun.
Makes me laugh damed if you do and damed if you dont, love to see the comments if someone landing over MLW single engine and had a gear collapse/ overrun.
burning off fuel to get down to MLW is frequently futile. I watch” aero inside “ magazine every day online and at least once per day someone does this. We are talking aircraft with no fuel dump here. “ Held for 45/minutes to reduce landing weight “ is topical comment.
1 tonne = 1 knot approach speed. So holding for an hour reduces speed by one knot. The plane is certified to land at Max TOW
So landing a bit over MLW is going to be totally safe.
You wont overrun because you calculate landing distance +30% typically prior to landing as normal
cheers
Yan
