Airbus A330 overweight landing checklist...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus A330 overweight landing checklist...
Hi guys,
I´m new on the Bus, so I know very little and I have many doubts.
This one is related to the overweight landing checklist..... Here we go!
The table at the bottom of the page must be checked to find out if landing must be performed using the recommended flap setting (FULL) or rather FLAP 3.
I understand the background. At the dispatch, approach climb limits must be met. This means 2.1%, gear down, landing flaps etc etc etc. Additionally, if the DH is below 200ft, or, a GA gradient of 2.5% (or higher) is required, we must check that we comply with this 2.5% (or higher if required).
What I don´t understand is what the named table is assuming... 2.1% or 2.5% ?????? !!
The following is directly copied and pasted from the A330 FCTM:
"The approach climb gradient limiting weight tables in QRH Refer to FCOM/DEL-xxx Duref Cible FCOM are provided for conservative QNH and consequently may slightly differ from Refer to FCOM/PER-GOA-ACG-NOR CONF 3 - Gradient 2.5%.
However this statement confuses me, because if I make direct comparisons between these 2 different tables, it seems that the QRH table is in fact less conservative, worse, I don´t know what gradient the table is assuming.... e.g:
Assume 20ºc at PA 2000´:
QRH limiting weight: 232.000kg
FCOM PER limiting weight: 225.000kg (CONF 3, CAT II, 2.5%)
In deed this is actually the situation that most worries me, because if I where to perform an approach with DH above 200´, I know that by certification I always comply with the 2.1% (CS-AWO).
What If I must perform a CAT III approach? Personally I would refer to the most restrictive table (FCOM PER)....
Can somebody spell some light over this matter? What does the QRH table actually assume... 2.1%, 2.5%..........?
Well, this here is me beating around the bush...! Such an essay for such a tiny little doubt!
Help will be greatly rewarded! (Not really, it will however be deeply appreciated
)
Thank you all,
Alberto
I´m new on the Bus, so I know very little and I have many doubts.
This one is related to the overweight landing checklist..... Here we go!
The table at the bottom of the page must be checked to find out if landing must be performed using the recommended flap setting (FULL) or rather FLAP 3.
I understand the background. At the dispatch, approach climb limits must be met. This means 2.1%, gear down, landing flaps etc etc etc. Additionally, if the DH is below 200ft, or, a GA gradient of 2.5% (or higher) is required, we must check that we comply with this 2.5% (or higher if required).
What I don´t understand is what the named table is assuming... 2.1% or 2.5% ?????? !!
The following is directly copied and pasted from the A330 FCTM:
"The approach climb gradient limiting weight tables in QRH Refer to FCOM/DEL-xxx Duref Cible FCOM are provided for conservative QNH and consequently may slightly differ from Refer to FCOM/PER-GOA-ACG-NOR CONF 3 - Gradient 2.5%.
However this statement confuses me, because if I make direct comparisons between these 2 different tables, it seems that the QRH table is in fact less conservative, worse, I don´t know what gradient the table is assuming.... e.g:
Assume 20ºc at PA 2000´:
QRH limiting weight: 232.000kg
FCOM PER limiting weight: 225.000kg (CONF 3, CAT II, 2.5%)
In deed this is actually the situation that most worries me, because if I where to perform an approach with DH above 200´, I know that by certification I always comply with the 2.1% (CS-AWO).
What If I must perform a CAT III approach? Personally I would refer to the most restrictive table (FCOM PER)....
Can somebody spell some light over this matter? What does the QRH table actually assume... 2.1%, 2.5%..........?
Well, this here is me beating around the bush...! Such an essay for such a tiny little doubt!
Help will be greatly rewarded! (Not really, it will however be deeply appreciated
)Thank you all,
Alberto
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like to keep things simple - just follow the checklist, don't worry about tiny details, and spend all the spare time generated working on your golf swing.....
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: italy
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hola Alberto,
I don't know what is written on your manuals.
In my qrh, max go around conf 3 weight is lower than values on from 3 (same input parameters) as specify in FCTM.
As Tyro Picard says....fly simple. During overweight landing, read and apply qrh proc. After landing make a huge discussion in front a beer about qnh,qrh,from....
Michelda
I don't know what is written on your manuals.
In my qrh, max go around conf 3 weight is lower than values on from 3 (same input parameters) as specify in FCTM.
As Tyro Picard says....fly simple. During overweight landing, read and apply qrh proc. After landing make a huge discussion in front a beer about qnh,qrh,from....
Michelda
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The QRH value refers to a specific procedure. If you are over 232 mt in your procedure, you must approach in CONF 3 and go around in CONF 1+F to meet 2.1%.
If you are under that you can use CONF FULL or CONF 3 and retract 1 step, as normal. However, in that case you may have to accelerate up to 1.4 Vs instead of 1.23 Vs, as the factors on the bottom of the charts in 3.05.35 give.
Now your question is above 225 mt, the plane is not certified to climb at 2.5%. In this case you must either jettison or burn fuel or land anyway using your emergency authority, following procedures to give you a 2.1% guarantee.
Overweight CAT II and CAT III autolands are not certified for this and other reasons. Airbus has tested them and found they work fine. The FCOM states that this must also be done under emergency authority.
If you are under that you can use CONF FULL or CONF 3 and retract 1 step, as normal. However, in that case you may have to accelerate up to 1.4 Vs instead of 1.23 Vs, as the factors on the bottom of the charts in 3.05.35 give.
Now your question is above 225 mt, the plane is not certified to climb at 2.5%. In this case you must either jettison or burn fuel or land anyway using your emergency authority, following procedures to give you a 2.1% guarantee.
Overweight CAT II and CAT III autolands are not certified for this and other reasons. Airbus has tested them and found they work fine. The FCOM states that this must also be done under emergency authority.
