Engine failure in Tyumen
 

Six hours ago. Landed safely after burning enough fuel. Any other informations ?

Practicing flying its holding pattern? Slight room for improvement..

To get down to max landing weight?

Not holding per se - just securing the engine etc before returning to land in an orderly fashion.

I understand the performance capabilities and regulations, and the fact that you can land above max landing weight back at the departure runway - just with inspections required and possible brake/wheel/tire damage. However we commonly see reports of crews burning off and/or jettisoning fuel to get below or near max landing weight to minimize damage on landing after an engine failure on takeoff or climb.

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.

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.

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.

Are you suggesting the accident was due to exceedance of MLW?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.