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 2nd May 2007, 17:49
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,433
87,

Your book collection is impressive, but you really have stop pretending to be an A320 pilot.

Mutt
mutt is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 05:06
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Between heaven and hell
Posts: 239
Regarding Blackmail's post (#52)

There is an ongoing debate about what you mentioned.

Situation: yo see you are going to land MLW<LW<MLW+2%, operation normal and no need to rush.

What do you do?

1) No worries, just land at that weight

2) Do something to reduce your LW<MLW

3) This issue is not even worth being discussed

Thanks for your replies
ant1 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 05:41
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A tropical island.
Posts: 455
So a thread that has been dead for 1415 days and you dig it up... because?
aviatorhi is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 06:44
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 29
Posts: 88
I am interested to see how C87 would cope with a situation such as what the Qantas pilots were faced with on the a380 incident. His checklists may as well be chucked out the window. As a student pilot I always have one thing that I prioritize for myself should an inflight emergency occur and that is "Fly the bloody thing" To hell with the rules if they get in the way of safety

C87, i sure hope you wake up and realize there is more to being a pilot than following what a book tells you so that if Im ever pax on a plane you are PIC on and an emergency happens you deal with it in the best to your ability rather than religiously following a manual written by someone whos seat isn't moving.
Morrisman1 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 08:14
  #65 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Since someone has 'exhumed' this thread, I seem to recall that in the dim and distant days when I had to account and charge for Eurocontrol fees, they were based on MLW which may explain NoD's shenanigans. This 'new' MLW would be a planning value only and would have no effect on an 'overweight' landing, and indeed temporary increases would be allowable if required back to any value below structural. If that is the case I would expect, however, that BA would ensure that crews were aware of the STRUCTURAL limit rather than the 'commercial' limit to enable sound judgement to be made.

As a footnote, as said earlier, it always used to be the case that an a/c should be capable (ie not falling apart) of a 'reasonably controlled' re-landing up to structural MTOW.
BOAC is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 14:42
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Between heaven and hell
Posts: 239
aviatorhi, the reason is simple: I did a search and this thread and more specifically post #52 were very related to an ongoing debate we are having these days. I think I stated this in my introduction. I have tried to say it in different words and hope this has satisfied your curiosity.

If you feel like it you may now tell me if it is 1, 2 or 3. Your first answer seems to indicate that the third answer could likely be your choice.

For clarification this debate has nothing to do with charges. I can't see how the other answers relate to my question so 3 it is again.

Other opinions are welcome, thanks
ant1 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 22:27
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Southwest
Posts: 25
To answer the original question - when it is necessary.
Pidge is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 01:58
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
Landing overweight in any airplane is no big deal but requires an inspection. Try to minimize the sink rate at touchdown and you won't break anything. Usually you have a reason because landing overweight is safer than burning or if possible dumping fuel. I only had to dump fuel once and it was for a radar failure that would not allow me to fly into a tropical storm area going to South America with no radar ATC. The radar was already written up and ground checked ok so I saw it fail on the runway right before liftoff so expected it to happen. Some times it is good to punish your airline for giving you a plane you know is still broke but maintenance signed off.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 11:52
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Between heaven and hell
Posts: 239
Pidge you say when it is necessary. I stated operation normal, no need to rush or save fuel for wx etc. So you seem to imply that if not necessary you don't land overweight.

Bubbers44

Same thing, I'm not talking about having some emergency or urgency situation. Would you land MLW<LW<MLW+2% without a good reason like it's no big deal?

Thanks
ant1 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 14:30
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 165
Key points for overweight Landing

Overweight landings are incompatible with flight control problems and anything affecting the braking capacity.

It is always a good idea to have a look at the FPPM to get an idea what the Vmbe is at MTOW and at what weight you hit the max tire speed.

Often you will see that, unless it is warm and the field elevation is high you will have ample performance.

Using max brakes is often not a good idea. Use full runway to reduce the load on the brakes.
Pitch Up Authority is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 18:59
  #71 (permalink)  

ECON cruise, LR cruise...
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 47
Posts: 564
When would an overweight landing be considered the lowest risk option -apart from the obvious cases of ECAM/QRH stating "Land ASAP" or similar?

Unless my AFM says any different, my philosophy has always been when down to one engine / one genrator / one hydraulic system (braking requirements permitting) / medical emergency. Press problems, other required equipment or commercial considerations would not merit it - but given the design criteria applied to FAR/JAR25 aircraft, a properly executed OWL at a runway of suitable length and with suitable weather is a non-event.
Empty Cruise is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 20:51
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
I'd be thinking very carefully about eroding landing and missed approach safety margins for a medical emergency.
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2011, 22:04
  #73 (permalink)  

ECON cruise, LR cruise...
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 47
Posts: 564
Sciolistes,

I don't think anyone here has suggested you attempt landing overweight if you can't meet landing distance and missed approach requirements.

Sure - the margins will not be the same as if you landed at the same airport at MLM - but we operate our aircraft near the requirements often - taking off a couple of ton under RTOM or landing close to RLM. No pilots woth their salt would refuse operating close to the limit as long as you are positively on the safe side - the same principle should apply during a medical emergency.

Other than that, I agree with what I percieve your sentiment to be - namely that we should never consider endangering the aircraft or its occupants just because some poor soul has keeled over in the cabin.
Empty Cruise is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 03:38
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,342
Most old FREIGHTDOGS know that an overweight landing is something that was allmost the norm as customers often padded their weights. May be a different story today but I have been on at least 2 flights that we had to divert early for extra fuel due to excess load. Also all aircraft are designed to specs well above what they are certified for, other than flight chararistics the landing is less likely to result in damage than on a light aircraft on a hard landing.

Loved watching old 74c's land using aerodynamic breaking, hell if you have the RWY they saved brakes and made their turnoff. Understand it is a taboo subject as procedure trumps skill these days.

I do not see where a heavy landing is much of an issue with narrow body aircraft, hell if you have the rwy length just add the speed you feel safe with. Once again skill over procedure that is not written into your operating manual.
grounded27 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 05:38
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Empty Cruise,

Other than that, I agree with what I percieve your sentiment to be - namely that we should never consider endangering the aircraft or its occupants just because some poor soul has keeled over in the cabin.
Quite so sir and precisely my point. I agree that one could at least consider (carefully) an overweight landing for such a situation, but equally one must be able to determine when to reject such an idea.

Grounded27,

The idea that we don't actually know if we are overweight, given some dodgy cargo, isn't an argument. Obviously, you may already be unknowingly overweight when deciding to land knowingly overweight!

Evaluating when to deviate from procedure, is its self SOP. Nothing to do with flying skill, simply judgement of a specific situation.
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 07:22
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,342
Evaluating when to deviate from procedure, is its self SOP. Nothing to do with flying skill, simply judgement of a specific situation.
Unfortunately judgement is a skill, when operating an aircraft it becomes a flying skill...
grounded27 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 07:24
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Between heaven and hell
Posts: 239
Ok overweights should be non event. Are you impliying that 2% overweight is not even considered overweight so you can do it any odd time you want without a good reason?

Or if you had the choice and no pressure of any kind would you burn that 2% weight?
ant1 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 11:20
  #78 (permalink)  

ECON cruise, LR cruise...
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 47
Posts: 564
Burn the 2%, Ant - MLM is just that, a maximum. Also, if you do it off base and depart again without the owerweight landing inspection, you'll have a very hard case to argue in court when summat happens to the aircraft brake/tyre/gear-systems 10 sectors later and they start looking at what the aircraft was doing previously. Might not have anything to do with cause and effect, but enough for the prosecution to pounce on...
Empty Cruise is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 19:13
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Garsfontein, Pretoria
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by Pennellino
C87 are you studying A320 on Wilco manuals?

Regards
Ouch

Christo
Christo is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 05:56
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Between heaven and hell
Posts: 239
Empty Cruise as you may well have guessed I agree with you that this overweight has to be taken care of. The debate arises because our Operations Manual says that under 2% no report, much less inspection is required hence some pilots treat the issue as if LW<MLW+2% is NOT an overweight landing. Post #52 seems to go along the latter.
ant1 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.