Approach climb grad&landing weight
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moscow
Age: 48
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach climb grad&landing weight
Landing weight is limited both structuraly and due to approach climb gradient. The question is how we respect the last one practically? For example, max take off weight is calculated before each flight using RTOW charts but I do not remember me having checked landing weight in respect to perfomence.
Thanks
Thanks
Moderator
RLW is similar to RTOW in that the most limiting of a number of considerations dictates the weight restriction on the day. It's up to the operator/commander as to how the sums might be done.
Looking specifically to your question, the limits also include landing climb gradient (AEO, landing flap, gear down).
If the company does the work, then the ops manual will have the final output including all the limitations. If the pilot does it, then the AFM will lead you through the step A-B-C process in a manner similar to figuring the RTOW.
Looking specifically to your question, the limits also include landing climb gradient (AEO, landing flap, gear down).
If the company does the work, then the ops manual will have the final output including all the limitations. If the pilot does it, then the AFM will lead you through the step A-B-C process in a manner similar to figuring the RTOW.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: between FL330 and FL390
Age: 38
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Well in my Airline there is a table, just in the back-side of the RTOW charts, with all the associated weights and gradients. If you have any limitation or any other different from standard required on the APP plate expressed in %, you can check it out this table.
It should be provided by the airline, and I donīt know where exactly is in my manual.
bye
Well in my Airline there is a table, just in the back-side of the RTOW charts, with all the associated weights and gradients. If you have any limitation or any other different from standard required on the APP plate expressed in %, you can check it out this table.
It should be provided by the airline, and I donīt know where exactly is in my manual.
bye
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moscow
Age: 48
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFM tells me that eng.programm should be used like that for RTOW or additanally I can find tables in FCOM 3 for info. There is no info in operation manual or FCOM2 (where RTOW is discribed for example). Ok, thanks for reply.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 'tween posts
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reality
the chance are that the approach glimb gradient limit for normal operating enviornment(temp&PA) is way above MLW, same is the case with landing climb wt, except at extreme high temp&PA.
hence they become limiting in case of immediate return to land at high takeoff wts,and the charts are placed in the inflight section of the fcom
correct me if i am wrong
hence they become limiting in case of immediate return to land at high takeoff wts,and the charts are placed in the inflight section of the fcom
correct me if i am wrong
Last edited by gearpins; 1st Dec 2009 at 02:29.
Moderator
The relevant charts normally are in the landing section of the performance section of the AFM.
While the detail will vary with Type, the approach and landing climb requirements may cut in at a comparatively low Hp and above ISA deviation.
While the detail will vary with Type, the approach and landing climb requirements may cut in at a comparatively low Hp and above ISA deviation.
Have a look at FCOM 3.05.35: config 3-one engine inop
For the A320 the MLW of 66.0 is less than the app. climb limit until a 10,000' elevation strip which is higher than allowed anyway. The blank sections of the table may be outside the ISA plus limits(???)
In the overweight landing situation you may elect to use the config 2 figures which show 76.8 tonnes at 44 deg and 2000'. In an emerg. reland you are unlikely to consider this anyway.
Also the QRH gives direction 2.25 (two eng.) or 2.50 (one eng.) regarding using a Config 3 landing (thus Config 2 go around) to improve performance in the overweight situation. Although this is not directly associated with the approach climb issues.
The A321 is a LOT more limiting than the 320.
Hope this helps
For the A320 the MLW of 66.0 is less than the app. climb limit until a 10,000' elevation strip which is higher than allowed anyway. The blank sections of the table may be outside the ISA plus limits(???)
In the overweight landing situation you may elect to use the config 2 figures which show 76.8 tonnes at 44 deg and 2000'. In an emerg. reland you are unlikely to consider this anyway.
Also the QRH gives direction 2.25 (two eng.) or 2.50 (one eng.) regarding using a Config 3 landing (thus Config 2 go around) to improve performance in the overweight situation. Although this is not directly associated with the approach climb issues.
The A321 is a LOT more limiting than the 320.
Hope this helps
Last edited by illusion; 1st Dec 2009 at 06:51.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The maximum landing weight is the lower weight found by taking the following into account;
1. Structural Limitation
2. LDA
3. Balked Climb Gradient (WAT) -All Engines
4. Approach Climb Gradient (WAT) - OEI
5. Missed Approach Procedure minimum Gradient - OEI
Landing Weight + Burn = Max Take-off weight restricted by Landing weight. -
Quite common on large(ish) aircraft flying short sectors between big airports.
i.e. performance wise it may be possible to get airborne at a weight that requires more than the scheduled flight burn to reduce the weight to the maximum for landing.
Very costly and embarassing to have to orbit for an hour burning fuel to reduce the mass enought to land.
Edit to add that there is of course also a minimum landing weight i.e. weight with diversion fuel and final reserve remaining onboard.
1. Structural Limitation
2. LDA
3. Balked Climb Gradient (WAT) -All Engines
4. Approach Climb Gradient (WAT) - OEI
5. Missed Approach Procedure minimum Gradient - OEI
Landing Weight + Burn = Max Take-off weight restricted by Landing weight. -
Quite common on large(ish) aircraft flying short sectors between big airports.
i.e. performance wise it may be possible to get airborne at a weight that requires more than the scheduled flight burn to reduce the weight to the maximum for landing.
Very costly and embarassing to have to orbit for an hour burning fuel to reduce the mass enought to land.
Edit to add that there is of course also a minimum landing weight i.e. weight with diversion fuel and final reserve remaining onboard.
Last edited by DFC; 1st Dec 2009 at 10:00.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Borada,
If you look at Zurich LSZH ILS 16 minima:
Jeppesen shows Cat 1 DA 1590 ft Note 1 = " 5% Missed Apch climb gradient min".
or CAT 1 C: 1825 ft. 2.5%.
So if you want to operate down to 1590 ft DA, you have to prove that you can make 5% engine out with the actual prevailing conditions. You should have a way to do the calculation - else you'll be restricted to 1825 ft DA.
There are lots of them around e.g.
Salzburg Special ILS DME Rwy 16 (5.9%)
Naples ILS Z Rwy 06 (5.2%)
If you look at Zurich LSZH ILS 16 minima:
Jeppesen shows Cat 1 DA 1590 ft Note 1 = " 5% Missed Apch climb gradient min".
or CAT 1 C: 1825 ft. 2.5%.
So if you want to operate down to 1590 ft DA, you have to prove that you can make 5% engine out with the actual prevailing conditions. You should have a way to do the calculation - else you'll be restricted to 1825 ft DA.
There are lots of them around e.g.
Salzburg Special ILS DME Rwy 16 (5.9%)
Naples ILS Z Rwy 06 (5.2%)
