Overweight landings and aircraft checks
Moderator
But it is different. Why do Boeing and Airbus both give guidance on overweight landings?
I suggest that there is no fundamental difference at all.
Now, no-one is suggesting that overweight landings will not, and do not, occur. The only question of material interest is whether such a given landing might have been appropriate or inappropriate (and, I guess, if it were to get to Court .. legal or not so .. with the potential for legal censure in the latter event .. ie loss of certificate, fines, or time in the Big House according to jurisdiction and circumstances).
The situation is -
(a) the particular Type is designed to meet/exceed requirements specified in the relevant Design Standard (eg FAR 25).
(b) each individual aircraft, as part of the build and release process, is inspected and certified as being in compliance with the TC. At the end of the process a Certificate of Airworthiness is issued .. this document, in summary, attests to that compliance status.
(c) operational, maintenance, and general continuing airworthiness requirements have, as an implicit basis, continuing compliance with the Standards.
(d) part of the body of compliance involves a bunch of declared limitations which the pilot finds in the AFM Limitations Section (or, more commonly, in the company operations manual .. which should incorporate all pertinent AFM data)
(e) the MLW is a Certification limitation and, as such, is NO DIFFERENT to any other ... MTOW, MZFW, max operating level, number of persons permitted, etc., etc., etc....
(f) if you bust the MLW then, I suggest, at law, that is little different to intentionally flying without a valid pilot certificate or rating, taking off overweight, etc., etc., etc...
*********
Now, the whole Certification thing is based on risk, amongst other things.
The reality is that, once airborne, a circumstance may well arise which is associated with a risk environment where an overweight landing is preferable to delaying the landing for sufficient time to burn down to MLW.
The regulatory processes all have rules for the pilot to invoke emergency provisions with the implied right to operate (but only to the minimum extent necessary) outside the normal set of rules. If such a set of circumstances apply then it is appropriate for the commander to consider such an overweight landing.
A responsible and prudent OEM will provide certification-relevant data in the AFM or crew operating manuals for such a circumstance.
A responsible and prudent operator will provide operational guidance in the operations manual for this circumstance. Such guidance ought also provide information to assist the commander in determining whether the particular circumstances might be appropriate to consider an overweight landing.
.. but you don't have any prerogative to land overweight just because you thought it might be a good idea .. or you wanted to get to the pub quicker (although that has some justification after a long day) .. or the toilets didn't work (God preserve us) .. or whatever other trivial reason might pertain.
My views are far from isolated.
That is clear from the several threads relating to this topic. However, such a circumstance is not a necessary and sufficient condition to infer that the view is acceptable from either Regulatory or legal points of view.
From a technical point of view I don't think there is a major issue
In general, from the aircraft side of the house, that probably will hold true.
I don't think you have to be on fire with an engine out before you can do so
Then, where do you propose to draw whatever line ? (This is the line which ought to be in the company operations manual for guidance).
One needs to keep in mind that, if you step outside the "acceptable" boundaries, you can expect
(a) your company to leave you high and dry like a shag on a rock ...
(b) likewise the Regulator ... they might just take your ticket .. and then prosecute you at Law with potential penalties of fine and/or jail time
(c) likewise the Judge .. I shudder when I read, as a lay person, reasons for judgement in some cases. The Law is about procedure and history .. not the lay person's comprehension of Industry-based "reasonableness".
would a 'legally competent' person make the same decision as a competent aircraft Commander?
Very possibly not. However, the concern is irrelevant. The significance of "legal competence" is that such a person might be far better able to comment on the legal significance of Limitations and operation in contravention of such limitations. At the end of the day, should you survive the aircraft event, the legal bits are what are going to result in your being a pauper or able to retire with dignity ...
For those who think that I am being an overwrought wuss ... read up on a few such (or similar) events.
For instance, we have an example in Oz where an apparently professional and responsible pilot recently has been found liable in a Court judgement in respect of a fatal accident several years ago.
As another example, many years ago, a commuter crashed at Sydney. A local airline pilot spent, as I recall, the best part of two days under severe cross examination and all he had done was land during the event in circumstances where he really didn't have much alternative.
.. the list goes on .. and on.
Just had an A330 landing OW after a divertion into BOM due 'All toilets inop'.
.. I think I'll just go and cry into my beer
... [caveat: I don't know the 330 .. if it doesn't have dump capability then, depending on the circumstances, that situation might well fit in with a consideration of low level emergency warranting an early landing. Interestingly, toilet capability is a practical design consideration for long range aircraft.]
I suggest that there is no fundamental difference at all.
Now, no-one is suggesting that overweight landings will not, and do not, occur. The only question of material interest is whether such a given landing might have been appropriate or inappropriate (and, I guess, if it were to get to Court .. legal or not so .. with the potential for legal censure in the latter event .. ie loss of certificate, fines, or time in the Big House according to jurisdiction and circumstances).
The situation is -
(a) the particular Type is designed to meet/exceed requirements specified in the relevant Design Standard (eg FAR 25).
(b) each individual aircraft, as part of the build and release process, is inspected and certified as being in compliance with the TC. At the end of the process a Certificate of Airworthiness is issued .. this document, in summary, attests to that compliance status.
(c) operational, maintenance, and general continuing airworthiness requirements have, as an implicit basis, continuing compliance with the Standards.
(d) part of the body of compliance involves a bunch of declared limitations which the pilot finds in the AFM Limitations Section (or, more commonly, in the company operations manual .. which should incorporate all pertinent AFM data)
(e) the MLW is a Certification limitation and, as such, is NO DIFFERENT to any other ... MTOW, MZFW, max operating level, number of persons permitted, etc., etc., etc....
(f) if you bust the MLW then, I suggest, at law, that is little different to intentionally flying without a valid pilot certificate or rating, taking off overweight, etc., etc., etc...
*********
Now, the whole Certification thing is based on risk, amongst other things.
The reality is that, once airborne, a circumstance may well arise which is associated with a risk environment where an overweight landing is preferable to delaying the landing for sufficient time to burn down to MLW.
The regulatory processes all have rules for the pilot to invoke emergency provisions with the implied right to operate (but only to the minimum extent necessary) outside the normal set of rules. If such a set of circumstances apply then it is appropriate for the commander to consider such an overweight landing.
A responsible and prudent OEM will provide certification-relevant data in the AFM or crew operating manuals for such a circumstance.
A responsible and prudent operator will provide operational guidance in the operations manual for this circumstance. Such guidance ought also provide information to assist the commander in determining whether the particular circumstances might be appropriate to consider an overweight landing.
.. but you don't have any prerogative to land overweight just because you thought it might be a good idea .. or you wanted to get to the pub quicker (although that has some justification after a long day) .. or the toilets didn't work (God preserve us) .. or whatever other trivial reason might pertain.
My views are far from isolated.
That is clear from the several threads relating to this topic. However, such a circumstance is not a necessary and sufficient condition to infer that the view is acceptable from either Regulatory or legal points of view.
From a technical point of view I don't think there is a major issue
In general, from the aircraft side of the house, that probably will hold true.
I don't think you have to be on fire with an engine out before you can do so
Then, where do you propose to draw whatever line ? (This is the line which ought to be in the company operations manual for guidance).
One needs to keep in mind that, if you step outside the "acceptable" boundaries, you can expect
(a) your company to leave you high and dry like a shag on a rock ...
(b) likewise the Regulator ... they might just take your ticket .. and then prosecute you at Law with potential penalties of fine and/or jail time
(c) likewise the Judge .. I shudder when I read, as a lay person, reasons for judgement in some cases. The Law is about procedure and history .. not the lay person's comprehension of Industry-based "reasonableness".
would a 'legally competent' person make the same decision as a competent aircraft Commander?
Very possibly not. However, the concern is irrelevant. The significance of "legal competence" is that such a person might be far better able to comment on the legal significance of Limitations and operation in contravention of such limitations. At the end of the day, should you survive the aircraft event, the legal bits are what are going to result in your being a pauper or able to retire with dignity ...
For those who think that I am being an overwrought wuss ... read up on a few such (or similar) events.
For instance, we have an example in Oz where an apparently professional and responsible pilot recently has been found liable in a Court judgement in respect of a fatal accident several years ago.
As another example, many years ago, a commuter crashed at Sydney. A local airline pilot spent, as I recall, the best part of two days under severe cross examination and all he had done was land during the event in circumstances where he really didn't have much alternative.
.. the list goes on .. and on.
Just had an A330 landing OW after a divertion into BOM due 'All toilets inop'.
.. I think I'll just go and cry into my beer
... [caveat: I don't know the 330 .. if it doesn't have dump capability then, depending on the circumstances, that situation might well fit in with a consideration of low level emergency warranting an early landing. Interestingly, toilet capability is a practical design consideration for long range aircraft.]
Moderator
Good sir, my comment should be read as being a little tongue in cheek .... I guess that, sometimes, an attempt at humour can fall flat ...
Clearly, with a large aircraft full of passengers of all ages and medical conditions, circumstances may well arise where an overweight landing is reasonable and appropriate in the situation of U/S toilets. I would be less concerned with the social amenity etc., than with consideration of potential medical sequelae.
It is implicit, however, that the normal operational and airworthiness considerations would be incorporated into the decision making process.
However, and more importantly for the discussion topic, this is a perfect example (at least, to me) of why the operator should include OM guidance material on when an overweight landing might be acceptable in lieu of prolonged holding.
The point in question is that it is better for the operator's flight standards and certification/tech services folk to mull over the intracies of such situations around the coffee pot rather than put the commander on the spot ......
Clearly, with a large aircraft full of passengers of all ages and medical conditions, circumstances may well arise where an overweight landing is reasonable and appropriate in the situation of U/S toilets. I would be less concerned with the social amenity etc., than with consideration of potential medical sequelae.
It is implicit, however, that the normal operational and airworthiness considerations would be incorporated into the decision making process.
However, and more importantly for the discussion topic, this is a perfect example (at least, to me) of why the operator should include OM guidance material on when an overweight landing might be acceptable in lieu of prolonged holding.
The point in question is that it is better for the operator's flight standards and certification/tech services folk to mull over the intracies of such situations around the coffee pot rather than put the commander on the spot ......
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JT
Surely you just can't write down and cover all eventualities which is why the Commander is meant to be able to exercise good judgement ?
I have definitely taken on board your concern on the legal side of this discussion. I will certainly follow this up in more detail, my concern is that I may want to give up professional flying after I do!
Surely you just can't write down and cover all eventualities which is why the Commander is meant to be able to exercise good judgement ?
I have definitely taken on board your concern on the legal side of this discussion. I will certainly follow this up in more detail, my concern is that I may want to give up professional flying after I do!
Moderator
Surely you just can't write down and cover all eventualities which is why the Commander is meant to be able to exercise good judgement ?
Couldn't agree more.
However, the operator is avoiding its reasonable obligation if it doesn't provide guidance on those situations which are reasonably predictable.
The commander should only have to exercise his/her vast experience and decision making prowess in those interesting, oddball and out of left field events which come out of the woodwork from time to time ... Sioux City and the Hudson are points of note.
The routine bits should be discussed in the OM.
my concern is that I may want to give up professional flying after I do!
As you are aware from our sideline discussions, I am out of the cockpit at present and, when I read some of the things which go on, sometimes I'm not all that keen to get back in.
Couldn't agree more.
However, the operator is avoiding its reasonable obligation if it doesn't provide guidance on those situations which are reasonably predictable.
The commander should only have to exercise his/her vast experience and decision making prowess in those interesting, oddball and out of left field events which come out of the woodwork from time to time ... Sioux City and the Hudson are points of note.
The routine bits should be discussed in the OM.
my concern is that I may want to give up professional flying after I do!
As you are aware from our sideline discussions, I am out of the cockpit at present and, when I read some of the things which go on, sometimes I'm not all that keen to get back in.
