Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Is this a good way to burn off extra fuel

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Is this a good way to burn off extra fuel

Old 3rd Sep 2017, 09:53
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I already posted the FAA reg, and it says "No person operating ... may take off ..."

Not "no person may plan to take off" and, oopsie daisy!, things didn't go according to plan..
Vessbot is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 12:32
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Band a Lot,

Honestly I do not really understand how a regulator can allow to deliberately exceed an aircraft limitation or performance, it seems really odd.
Can You give us some examples of operational situation where Your employer/regulator will allow You that and under what regulations You are operating (EASA, FAA, etc..) ?
Thanks !
sonicbum is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 14:26
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: queensland
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
we are living in a world where people trying to save energy and fuel,, but here fuel has been burnt to reduce the TOW...
solomanflyer is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 14:36
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,808
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Post #1 details the circumstances under which it was necessary to do so.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 15:54
  #105 (permalink)  

PPRuNe Person
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ops manuals are typically approved by the governing authority. Could you please tell us which country you work in so we are aware of what country approves this.

Will we get an answer?
EASA. There you go.
overstress is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 15:59
  #106 (permalink)  

PPRuNe Person
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
if you know that you are currently overweight
How do you know? Did you put the aircraft on a scale at the holding point?

Key word/s are planned & deemed excessive - excessive should be described in the company approved manual.
It isn't in mine!

So your Company manual says you can disregard unburned taxi fuel, hence who cares ? We're super legal, let's exceed a limitation. You happily takeoff and a few hours later people working in your flight safety office get a nice red flag on the OFDM and call you for tea and biscuits. From there you learn to read the manuals, read the SOP and also "think" about what you are doing.
You work to your Ops Manual. I'll work to mine. What's an OFDM? And I DO read my manuals thanks, and think what I'm doing, or else I wouldn't be posting this stuff on here, would I?

Last edited by overstress; 3rd Sep 2017 at 16:10.
overstress is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 17:39
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by overstress
How do you know? Did you put the aircraft on a scale at the holding point?
Let's try again. I give you a load sheet, you have a current ramp weight of 302t and a take off weight of 300t all based on a taxi fuel of 2t. 300t is also your structural MTOW. You start taxi, and uh uh ! Happy days you get to go first in sequence having burned 500kg of fuel. Now 302t-0.5 = 301.5t. You are 1.5t above Your MTOW. You don't need a scale here, You need a 6 years old maths skills.

You work to your Ops Manual. I'll work to mine.
I will

What's an OFDM?
Onboard flight data monitoring.
sonicbum is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 17:49
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the driving point here is: it does not matter if the airplane is actually above MTOW.

you can't accurately calculate your current weight so you calculate a weight governed by certain rules ... which is the weight you compare to your MTOW.

if all the weights would be vs actual weights you could always say:
but i didn't have a scale so i didn't know for sure i was overweight so i packed two elephants more.
wiedehopf is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 19:13
  #109 (permalink)  

PPRuNe Person
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You don't need a scale here, You need a 6 years old maths skills.
I get it, no need to patronise. OFDM, as you put it, can only monitor based on inputted ZFW. As we both know, this is highly likely to be inaccurate anyway. My ops manual says minor exceedance is OK. Your example is flawed, it's unlikely for 2T taxi fuel, more likely to be burning contingency. I see no point in discussing this further as you don't work for the same company as me and I don't have to answer to you!
overstress is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2017, 09:09
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
no problem
sonicbum is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2017, 14:08
  #111 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Apparently, Overstress is just making stuff up. He won't name the country or quote the manual where he says this is allowed. It is more like, he is just taking off a bit overweight. Probably not a worry as it is not monitored.
JammedStab is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2017, 00:29
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Vic
Age: 56
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
i would think that any skipper who sat on a taxiway or moved slowly with high thrust set would quickly attract the ire of airfield operations. Most taxiways are do not have re enforced shoulders. I have seen quad jets rip up long stretches of grass just at idle thrust.
Ozgrade3 is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2017, 08:08
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,548
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
.Apparently, Overstress is just making stuff up. He won't name the country or quote the manual where he says this is allowed
He might be, he might not...

But FWIW and as I mentioned earlier our EASA compliant Ops manual allows it, and it is monitored.
wiggy is online now  
Old 5th Sep 2017, 09:12
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think you will find it is the regulator that sets the "standard weights" of pax not the aircraft manufacturer.

So it wont even take a smart pilot walking past his passengers to notice if many/most or all pax are over weight.

Lets say 90% appear to be a bit fat as the pilot walked down the isle - no problem here it is perfectly legal. Because it has been approved by the regulator and data had been given to average weights on certain things - this case passengers.

Now I know many companies that run extensions, on engines ( I know it not a weight thing) that are approved because a company has developed a method that has been deemed acceptable (this can be trend testing and overhaul limit checks), The regulator also has approved methods to test colour blind pilots - but that's a different story.

Now it is certainly possible to have a approved system in place to handle small overweight conditions (so may just need to be recorded) - the over weight landing checks for instance depend on by how much over weight was the landing, a very small amount requires a very small inspection, a large amount is a different story.

FYI I have worked FAA, EASA, CASA and a few of the CAA's
Band a Lot is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2017, 10:10
  #115 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by wiggy
He might be, he might not...

But FWIW and as I mentioned earlier our EASA compliant Ops manual allows it, and it is monitored.
But you won't write down the wording for us. I think then that it is a made-up story. Or not discovered during the audit.
JammedStab is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2017, 12:04
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Taking off overweight... A big no no in most airliners including the one I fly. With QAR data, we would be called by the safety department immediately.
Easy way around this, just input the zfw as 500kg lower into the FMC/FMS etc

Not that I'm an advocate of course
falconeasydriver is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2017, 12:26
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Haha!! I never had a overweight take off situation but I have been a couple of time close to MLW due to tankering and I was thinking about what you just said. lol
pineteam is offline  
Old 6th Sep 2017, 10:07
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Do not remember if this is the one but RAM had an increased gross weight approved by FAA and a STC issued simply by re mark of the ASI + a flight manual suplement.

Serviceable ( non-TAS ) airspeed indicators - remarked
[ If TAS indicator is currently installed, consult with your RAM representative. ]
<li class="Body-Copy">Gross Weight Increase STC and Flight Manual Supplement
T310 P [ + 270 lbs. Useful load ] [ GW from 5,400 up to 5,670 lbs. ]
T310 Q [ +170 lbs. Useful load ] [ GW from 5,500 up to 5,670 lbs. ]
Band a Lot is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2017, 03:58
  #119 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by falconeasydriver
Easy way around this, just input the zfw as 500kg lower into the FMC/FMS etc
The problem is...the documents are kept for a year and the CAA auditors where I fly are good at finding minute details.
JammedStab is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2017, 16:41
  #120 (permalink)  

PPRuNe Person
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JammedStab, thanks for questioning my integrity. My employer has a social media policy which I'm not about to break here just so you can know where I work. And I have never taken off overweight, I simply quote a company ops manual which is not available online except if you have a company login! To be clear, I'm not cutting and pasting, I paraphrase. Why would I make stuff up, life's too short.

If you don't like alternative views, why spend time on an aviation forum? Why not just accept that different operators in different countries have different policies and interpretations?
overstress is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.