Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Overweight Landing - When is it necessary ?

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Overweight Landing - When is it necessary ?

Old 30th Apr 2007, 16:42
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 84
re from captain87

I think isn't important the rate of descent to accomplish an overweight landing. The only important thing is when a pilot have to perform it ???

good afternoon !
captain87 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2007, 16:44
  #22 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rome
Posts: 761
But I'd like to remind that I have said that the overweight landing is always not recommended, and I haven't said that it's impossible ...
Captain87,

no one is going to perform an overweight landing if it is not strictly necessary. If you get into a critical condition which does not revert into an out of critical condition, you have no choice : you MUST land as soon as possible. Critical conditions are part of another subject that has already been covered a few posts earlier. A properly executed overweight landing will cause no big damages to the airplane.
I-2021 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2007, 16:46
  #23 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rome
Posts: 761
I think isn't important the rate of descent to accomplish an overweight landing. The only important thing is when a pilot have to perform it ???
Well if you perform a hard overweight landing you probably will need some of the fire brigade waiting for you beside the runway. So I would carefully manage my rate of descent.
I-2021 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2007, 16:49
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 84
re from captain87

For I-2021

I'd like to remind that each kind of failure, situation or condition require an immediate action ... but this action is specified by the checklists !
The impulsiveness is not tollerated aboard an airliner ... if there is a way to revert from an immeditely overweight landing to a delayed normal diversion with safe landing, this procedure MUST always be used !
Follow the checklists and you'll fly safely !
captain87 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2007, 16:59
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Eire
Posts: 44
My understanding of the regulations is that if the manufacturer does not or can not certify that the aircraft can land above MLW with a RoD less than 360 ft/min without structural damage, then a fuel jettisoning system must be installed. Hence, the very large long haul machinery needs to jettison because at MTOW they are substantially above their MLW.

By that logic, if the aircraft has a MTOW greater than MLW and it does not have a fuel jettisoning system, then landings are safe up to MTOW provided the RoD is controlled.

As many have said, you will not burst into flames immediately on impact if you are above MLW. Even if you land heavily while at MTOW, you will cause structural damage, but that does not mean that the wings fall off or the wheels go bouncing across the perimeter road and over the fence. I would much rather risk a technically written off fuselage than hang around in a hold on one engine for an hour or two while I burn off fuel. I would be inclined to add any failure, other than trivial ones to my list of failures that would warrant an overweight return.

Give me hydraulic trouble, electrical problems, engine problems, or of course the smoke or fire and I'll go back heavy every time.
An Paddy Eile is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2007, 17:00
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Germany
Posts: 71
captain87.

You're 19 years old. I believe you haven't sat in an airline cockpit before? I appreciate you being interrested and motivated, but please trust the statements given here (a compilation of the posts):

- An overweight landing is performed as soon as it gives the same or higher degree of safety than the continuation of the flight. (My operators OM-A)

- A320s are certified to land with a rate of up to 360 ft/min with MTOW!

- the rate of descent is important.

- Airbus does not say, that overweight landings are dangerous, because they aren't!

- Executed with a smooth touchdown, a long runway, not a lot of brakes and max reverse: no problem! One inspection, one signature from the mechanic - and you're back in the air.

Regards
Charly is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2007, 17:01
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 84
re from captain87

The rate of descent is important for pressurization issues only , but it's relevant also for other issues: stopping the aircraft on the runway, brakes efficiency, gear strut damage etc. ... but this is another topic ...
A practical example:
The A320 QRH state that it's not recommended to land with a residual cabin differential pressure ... but if we have to manage a SYS 1 +2 failure and at the same time we are above the MLW (just after takeoff) ... what procedures are required ? ... it' all written in the QRH ... no hazardous procedures necessary !!!
I know that it's very simple to speak from a chair ... but this is our job !
captain87 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2007, 17:11
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 84
re from captain87

I excuse with Charlie !
Unfortunately the humilty isn't my point of strenght ...
I have only 19 years, but what I say is originated from what I've studied
through the CBT, the FCOM's, the QRH etc.
Obviuosly I'm too young for operating aboard an A320, I hope to do it in a next future ...
I enjoy to share my aeronautical belief ...
captain87 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2007, 17:23
  #29 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rome
Posts: 761
I'd like to remind that each kind of failure, situation or condition require an immediate action ... but this action is specified by the checklists !
True most of the time.

The impulsiveness is not tollerated aboard an airliner ...
It is the same with women.

if there is a way to revert from an immeditely overweight landing to a delayed normal diversion with safe landing, this procedure MUST always be used !
I would prefer to make an overweight landing but since it is better to land safely below MLW, then I will do it !

Follow the checklists and you'll fly safely !
I will !

Unfortunately the humilty isn't my point of strenght ...
No checklist for that...

Ciao.
I-2021 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2007, 17:27
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 84
re from captain87

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Thank you !!! I've discovered a way for my character:
the humilty checklists !!!
Caution: Operate only before flight !!!

It's a very good gimmik !!!
Ciao
captain87 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2007, 19:14
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Somewhere between MSL and the Stratosphere
Posts: 225
Lightbulb

B737-NG's....Manufacturer has CERTIFIED the airplane to do a MTOW minus 5% landing weight landing with a maximum of 1.3g's to be cleared by their technical team with a visual(al biet a thorough one...!!) post flight.
Cheers now and enjoy those days when u get to do one........they're the only ones worth flying for....!!
BD
boeingdream787 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2007, 19:40
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,433
FAR 25.1001 (If i remember correctly) Fuel Jettison System: states that an aircraft must be able to achieve the required approach/landing climb gradients within 15 minutes of takeoff.
All of our landing field length limit charts have weights much greater than the MTOW.
We stipulate that overweight landings are not permitted for commercial reasons, in all other cases crew must assess if they can satisfy the field length limit weights and approach/landing climb limits and follow the appropriate overweight landing checklist.



Mutt
mutt is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 02:25
  #33 (permalink)  
Buttonpusher
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bloody Hell
Age: 60
Posts: 420
I've had to do an overweight landing on a 757-300 about 5 months ago.We air returned to SJU because of a reported vibration from one of the girls in the back. We were 20,000 lbs over MLW and no dump capability. My first officer did a superb job of landing on speed on target without an excessive rate of descent. We pulled back out of the gate about an hour and a half later after an inspection and headed home. It didn't seem like a big deal.(Except the paperwork of course!)
FLCH is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 04:59
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 48
We air returned to SJU because of a reported vibration from one of the girls in the back
must... resist.... joke...
dkaarma is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 05:52
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 84
re from captain87

For my point of view an overweight landing have to be considered for medical and fire emergencies only. If we lose one engine just after takeoff, the procedure (on the A320) states that it's strictly necessary to dump as fuel is possible until reaching the MLW or below.
It's unacceptable that we perform an overweight landing if there are other ways to solve the problem in question.
On the A320 i.e., if one engine fails just after takeoff, the procedures say to mantain V2 +10 until reaching A/H-R/H (acceleration altitude/reduction altitude).Then the climb may be continued with a minum climb gradient of 300 ft/m. Then following, if applicable, the EO (engine out) SID. - LAND ASAP
The fuel dumping is mandatory !!! becouse there is time to do it .
In addition to this each other situation (emergency after takeoff) can be perfectly executed with fuel dumping (except medical or fire).
A question: are there other situations who give priority for landing ASAP without considering the MLW limits ? ... I think no ...
DO IT EVERY TIME YOU CAN !
captain87 is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 06:23
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 568
We air returned to SJU because of a reported vibration from one of the girls in the back.
Couldn't you have just confiscated her batteries?

The fuel dumping is mandatory !!! becouse there is time to do it
You are quoting a lot of stuff from the manuals, but as far as I know, the A-320 is not capable of dumping fuel !?!
The Bullwinkle is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 06:58
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 84
re from captain87

No in fact, you're perfectly right !
I said a big fake !!!!
Airbus has forgotten to program it ...
Sorry ....

Last edited by captain87; 31st Dec 2007 at 06:31.
captain87 is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 07:14
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 84
re from captain87

The true procedure for A320 in case of overweight landing are the following:

OVERWEIGHT LANDING

- LDG CONF ...................... DETERMINE
- LDG DIST ...................... CHECK
- PACK 1 and 2 ................. OFF or supplied by APU

In final stages of approach

- TARGET SPEED .................. VLS

At main landing gear touchdown

- REVERSE THRUST ........... USE MAX AVALIABLE

After nose wheel touchdown

- BRAKES ........................ APPLY AS NECESSARY

Landing complete

BRAKE FANS ....................... ON

Sorry for having said a fake before ! I was thinking at the same time to A320 and 767.
Unfortunately my absent-mindedness is a typical characteristic in some cases ...
captain87 is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 08:58
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
I am somewhat concerned by how "serious" an overweight landing is considered above...

As far as I know, any 2 engine aircraft will require effectively "Land ASAP", and at nearest suitable airfiield, after (even partial) loss of 1 engine - over MLW or not. Maybe there are exceptions... but for 757/767, A319/320/321 in my company this is the case. Some 767s (not all) can dump fuel, but only from Centre Tank, and there was no requirement to get to MLW before landing, or even dump to max extent possible. In a 3+ Engine aircraft, I can see MLW being adhered to for a simple (single) EO.

NB sometimes the MLW is commercial - our MLW limit has changed for the A319 a few times recently. It is strange to need to do the "overweight landing checklist" (and engineer's checks) one day, but don't need to do the next day same weight / same aircraft

My main concern with overweight lanidng is the stopping / GA performance. The RoD / Inspection requirements are engineers' problems, not mine
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 10:46
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Roma
Posts: 377
C87 are you studying A320 on Wilco manuals?

Regards
Pennellino is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.