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 1st May 2007, 11:38
  #41 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 41
Posts: 2,560
Originally Posted by NigelOnDraft View Post
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
I was under the impression that declared MTOW may change for economical reasons, perhaps we are referring to the same issue?
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 12:37
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 84
re from captain87

For Pennellino only

I study for A320 type-rating using all the material scheduled for a type-certification. This includes CBT, FCOM's, QRH, Airbus updates and notes, Professional Training Videos. But I'd like to underline that I do it (since 6 months) as secondary study since I'm now studying for ATPL Course.

I wouldn't write any kind of posts basing on the Wilco Manuals (an insignificant reference for who haven't a good knowledge of the aircraft).
A further consideration have to be done: do you retain that the Wilco A320 Family is a good product ?

I personally think no. Why ? No simulations of whole systems logic, no abnormal procedures application with flight simulator, no entire MCDU functions implementation etc.

Kind regards !

Last edited by captain87; 1st May 2007 at 14:28.
captain87 is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 14:04
  #43 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 6,513
I was under the impression that declared MTOW may change for economical reasons

By whatever name known, air nav charges usually are predicated on MTOW. Hence some operators negotiate a "recertification" to reduce MTOW (and ANCs) where their operation doesn't require the higher MTOW value.

This will depend on regulator philosophy in the particular State.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 14:14
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 52
C87 - on Airbus, when necessary, the ECAM will tell you, in orange or red, to LAND ASAP.
Mr Ree is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 14:27
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 84
re from captain87

Yes, is true, accordingly to the level of failure.

And so ? ... regards !!!
captain87 is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 15:57
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Roma
Posts: 377
Well I don't know neither wilco (I don't play MFS for my training) nor the real airbus since I actually fly another type,anyway I'd suggest you to study just ATPL books and POH of aircraft on which you are learning VFR/IFR flight.You will have time to read a lot of stuff about airbus,boeing,fokker or whatever jet/turboprop you'll fly,doing it with a strengthened background and being assessed by professional instructors throughout ground and simulator sessions.Enjoy your 19 yo,meet girls and fly the Cessna/Piper doing your best to pass CPL exams.

Bye
Pennellino is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 16:21
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: No problem.
Age: 55
Posts: 14
Enjoy your 19 yo,meet girls and fly the Cessna/Piper doing your best to pass CPL exams.


On topic: in any time critical situation.
Tofu Racing is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 16:32
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 84
re from captain87

For Pennellino,

Probably you've reason but I am not able to let my flight manuals just neither for few seconds ... I succed to find the time to study becouse the fly is my life, my vocation ... While I study for A320 I enjoy and each thing I learn it's a great target for me ....
Besides I think that once finished the ATPL Course, a type-rating is necessary, and I've already chosen the A320.
Obviously I undertake himself for both studying the ATPL and A320.

I appreciate your suggestion and I thank you for having done it !

Kind regards !!!
captain87 is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 16:59
  #49 (permalink)  
Buttonpusher
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bloody Hell
Age: 60
Posts: 420
Quote:
We air returned to SJU because of a reported vibration from one of the girls in the back
must... resist.... joke...
Tee Hee, would be worse if it was from a guy....maybe too many beers on the layover !!
FLCH is online now  
Old 1st May 2007, 17:35
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 101
Guys,

I've got about 10 years on the 734's.( no jettison)

During sim checks, they like to point out both scenarios.

Occasions when you have the luxury of time, you of course reduce your landing weight.

When as the Commander, YOU DECIDE, that you have to land ASAP, then the landing weight becomes secondary, and a postflight issue. There is literature explaining and suggesting techniques for this scenario, ie an overweight landing.

I have , on occasion, when the actual TKOF weight is high, discussed and briefed and identified the procedure from the manuals at the preflight stage.

Techniques may differ between model and make, and it is important to realise this and be familiar with it.

I would not confine it to any specific scenario. Good judgement, that hopefully comes with that fourth bar, should be sufficient.
Brianigham is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 17:54
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2
... actually aircrafts are not certified for an auto land above MLW.
alb.///
alb./// is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 20:04
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: france
Posts: 193
overweight landings

hello every one,
overweight landings seem a very interesting topic, judging from some threads above. i did some research into the matter & found what follows :
1) definition : overweight landing is when you land at max landingweigth + 2%.
2) certification issues for the manufacturers : A) aircraft structure must be resistent for a landing at Max Take Off Weight(MTOW) with a rate of descent of 360ft/min. B) at[ MTOW - 15min of emergency fuel ], the aircraft must meet min regulatory go-around gradients. if not, a jettisson fuel system is required.
3) for maintenance : A) landing at mlw + 2%, ok(not considered overwt as per definition). B) landing at > (mlw + 2%) & < (mlw + 5%), if soft ldg = rod <300ft/min = ok; if hard ldg = rod > 600ft/min, then inspection as per maintenance manual required. C) landing at >( mlw + 5%), then inspection required in all cases. all this info is retrievable from the on board data monitoring system in addition of faithfull techlog entries by the operating aircrew.
4) for operators & aircrew : operators need to provide their crews with overweight landing policy & technical guidelines from the manufacturer to actually perform a safe overwt landing.
here an example of such a policy:
overwt landing RECOMMENDED: -any malfunction that seriously affect airworthiness of the aircraft. - any condition where a delay in landing might be detrimental to safety. - one engine inop. - serious illness amongst crew or pax requiring immediate medecal attention. overwt ldg PERMITTED : - a malfunction not directly affecting the airworthiness of the aircraft. - an unplanned diversion. overwt ldg NOT RECOMMENDED: - complete hydraulic fail (affecting braking perfo). - tire burst/fail. - flight control troubles that adversely affect the handling of the aircraft. note: word "prohibited" is not used in this policy example.
last but not least, her some tech guidelines, once decision to land overwt is taken. e.g. for b738ng : use flap 30 for better margin to flap placard speed.
you may configure next flap as much as 20kts below normal maneuver speeds( again for increased margin to flap placard speed). burn fuel as much as possible(early gear down). long rwy, no tailwinds, or negative slopes, limit wind additives to flap placard speed, no long ldg, max reverse, use all rwy to minimise brake temp, no early turn off etc.
5) no auto lands
6) conclusion : always use common sense in dealing with such problems & if you safely can avoid them : do.
hope i did not write to many mistakes.
kind regards,
bm

Last edited by blackmail; 2nd May 2007 at 08:50.
blackmail is offline  
Old 1st May 2007, 22:25
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
Had a check airman at our big airline in USA ask what I would do if I took off from US and found non of the lavs were working on a trip to Europe. I said I would return and land. He said would you declare an emergency. I said no. He said if you land overweight you have to declare an emergency. I said OK. I didn't say I only said that to pass my check ride not that I would really do it. My friend declared an emegency because of this same thinking and got to watch all the fire trucks greet him when he landed overweight on a 13.000 ft runway. Do what ever you want. I try not to get paranoid over the simple things. Some day it might bite you but using logic worked for me. Now I am retired so it doesn't matter.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2007, 00:38
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 568
My friend declared an emegency because of this same thinking and got to watch all the fire trucks greet him when he landed overweight on a 13.000 ft runway.
I would be so glad to see that! I bet he was too. I can't see the brakes from where I sit but the fire crews can, and although I don't know how much overweight your friends landing was, I would suspect that the brakes were very hot and there is a real possibility of a brake fire on any overweight landing.
The Bullwinkle is offline  
Old 2nd May 2007, 02:04
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
It was a two hour flight so I dought he even touched the brakes above 80 knots like a normal landing but with 13.000 feet of runway you wouldn't need any brakes at all just reverse to a full stop with no brakes. Our airline encouraged us to land overweight. The day my radar crapped out on takeoff roll hitting a bump on the runway so dumped fuel on the 727 and came back and landed because it was required for the South American flight. We had to justify not landing overweight if it didn't cause more risk than landing overweight. I didn't agree with their thinking that landing overweight was as safe as landing at MLW so dumped a lot of fuel and came back and landed. The check airman that said we had to declare an emergency convinced me dumping fuel versus declaring an emergency was the way to go. I, personally, would just land overweight on a long runway and not use brakes until slow. If you get paranoid about they are out to get you then I hope you are close to retirement.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2007, 06:59
  #56 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 41
Posts: 2,560
blackmail: excellent piece of informaton!

Originally Posted by john_tullamarine View Post
By whatever name known, air nav charges usually are predicated on MTOW. Hence some operators negotiate a "recertification" to reduce MTOW (and ANCs) where their operation doesn't require the higher MTOW value. This will depend on regulator philosophy in the particular State.
So does my employer. Question aimed at NoD was genuine and still stands: Is it really true that some operators change MLW for commercial reasons?

FD (the un-real)
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 2nd May 2007, 07:12
  #57 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
FD - like you, I have seen MTOM (tut tut ) change several times for 'commercial' reasons but I have never seen the MLM (tut tut ) change for that. Maybe airports/authorities are now charging on MLM?
BOAC is offline  
Old 2nd May 2007, 07:16
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
Question aimed at NoD was genuine and still stands: Is it really true that some operators change MLW for commercial reasons?
I just drive the thing, don't pay the bills etc. We are on our 3rd change for the A319 in approx a year, and each change alters the MTOW, Max Taxi Wt, MLW and MZFW... I am not sure which is the "driver" for change - one would think MTOW - but all seem to change for some reason
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 2nd May 2007, 08:47
  #59 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 41
Posts: 2,560
tut-tut: Ah, the sound of me feeling guilty Yet it seems that Airbus limits the field for it's products to 9,81 ms-2 scenarios. This way they never will sell a nut to Virgin Galactic.

NoD: Puzzling, is it not? I operate comparative A319, certified with multiple MTOW. Provided by manufacturer, page in the bible, section limitations, gives multiple mass variants for max taxi and TOW. MZFW, minimum W and FLW remain unchanged for each of the MTOWs. A note reads: Multiple MTOW are certified. A placard fitted on the aircraft must reflect the current MTOW.

If I understand correctly, you provide services to a very cost savvy operator. All companies attempt to save any -cent, but only few extend the efforts beyond "industry's best practice" such as fitting an extra pair of owerwing exits. The cockpit placard from last-year aircraft gives only MTOM, this year's (msn 3043&3094) have also MZFW and MLW included. Until today I presumed it was introduced for pilots to have all data at one spot, however now it seems that it may have been done on purpouse as probably some charges could be tied to MLW/MZFW.

To keep thread on track to it's final station, the Airbus Bible - section Limitations also reads: "In exceptional circumstances (inflight turnback or diversion), an immediate landing at weight above maximum landing weight is permitted, provided the pilot follows the overweight landing procedure."
Even if it did not, there's another base-rule we all surely do have coded in our DNA: ICAO Annex 2 to THE Convention: 2.4 AUTHORITY OF PILOT-IN-COMMAND OF AN AIRCRAFT: The pilot-in-command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command.

FD
(the un-real)
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 2nd May 2007, 16:11
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 940
During the pre flight brief I always remind the FO that the landing weight is not a consideration if we have a fire on board or an acute medical emergency.
87, you seem to have a strange grasp of the reality of flying an aeroplane. The pressurisation has nothing to do with an overweight landing or the rate of decent. You will find that reality will teach you that the books are for guidance. Nothing in them precludes the Captain from making any decision he feels will result in a safer outcome to any event he is confronted with.
rubik101 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.