fuel dump vs. overweight. ldg.

[MaxBlow]

15min. after T/O from the main base (1h45min. domestic flt. fuel for the return flt. is to be carried acc. fuel policy) we experienced eng. vib. close to the limits stated in the manual. After the c/l vib. was still evident (consider shut down), we did shut down the eng., decleared and dumped fuel down to max. LW on the way back, landed uneventful and made a techlog entry accordingly.

The day after I received an invitation to the office plus a very unpolite briefing (did you know how much money this flight cost us, plane aog etc.). Appearently the problem was known before but has not been written up so far.

May I add that I'm 'only' a contract pilot.

When would you elect to land overweight? Why do they blame me for bringing it back? I am a bit confused here since I really think that we did the right thing.
Comments appreaciated.

[xyz_pilot]

MaxBlow

I would think about how much I needed this job.

If the co does not put this sort of prob in the book, what else is not in the book. In the long term the only outcome is going to be lots and lots of dead peolpe. DO YOU WANT TO DIE?

[ft]

Lesse, so your options were to do what you did, return and land above MLW or ignore severe engine vibrations and continue the flight?

Landing above MLW would have required quite a bit of inspection, with associated costs. Can’t say what it would cost, but probably more than what it did cost the way you did it.

To go on with the engine vibrations you had, well... if they were within limitations, it could be an option I guess. But if the “consider shutdown” was quoted from the instructions, that was not the case.

If it was known or not does not matter if noone told you about it. I’d be interested in hearing what they thought you should have done.

Cheers,
Fred

[Airguitar]

If the checklist says to shut down, that's what to do. Overweight landings are when you're on fire and want to get off the jet asap.
I believe that most twin aircraft c/l's say "land asap" after an engine is shut down., That's what to do.

The bottom line is.. when the proverbial Poop hits the Turbofan, I am more inclined to consider the Check-List before the Cheque-Book !!!

Better to do the right thing and lose a bad job than do the wrong thing and throw away a great career !!!

Blue side up!!!

[xyz_pilot]

A Q for any eng on this topic.

How big is the inspection for an over weight ldg.

Say max 5t over on a 737/32X. How long would it take and whats the chance of finding a prob?

[BEagle]

What type of aeroplane were you flying?

Do ac such as the A330 have a fuel dump system? If not, what would you do with something like severe vibrations shortly after departure at MTOW - or a landing gear which wouldn't retract on an Atlantic crossing. Burn off for hours or land overweight?

What fatigue and inspection penalties are there for landing ac such as the A310 or A330 above normal MLW?

[HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD]

A loose rule of thumb for Boeings without fuel dump(75,73 etc)is that if you can take off from any given runway you can land back on it.If you are a real stickler for graphs you can consult Boeings amazing fractured incomprehensible complicated disjointed landing performance data.By the time you get an answer you will run out of fuel .Overweight landing inspection-not a huge issue compared to a full accident clean up.
Your companies attitude is shameful and they really deserve to be named and shamed.Ask the guy to imagine sitting in the back with his kids as you explained over the PA that you had a very worrying engine problem but had decided to continue on the basis that it might be alright.Record all your conversations with this guy.

[Hand Solo]

General practice in my company seems to have been that when in doubt the engineers have advised a return above MLW. In this kind of event, runway length permitting, I'd have no qualms whatsoever about shutting down the faulty engine and then performing a landing above MLW, and I doubt the management would find fault with that course of action. I think MaxBlow is suffering from the effects of a management which say money and not safety as the most important factor.

[Intruder]

I'd have no qualms whatsoever about shutting down the faulty engine and then performing a landing above MLW, and I doubt the management would find fault with that course of action. I think MaxBlow is suffering from the effects of a management which say money and not safety as the most important factor.

Hmmm... Engine out, above MLW... Where's the "safety" in that?!?

If I were management, I'd sure find fault with that! What is your go-around performance under those conditions?

[411A]

Hmmm, this story reminds be of the near incident a rather large middle east airline had in the early eighties whereby a 737, having had an engine failure shortly after takeoff, steamed around on one motor for nearly two hours to burn down to MLW, instead of simply...well, landing overweight.

The respective fleet manager was not pleased.

[Wino]

Fuel dump is a hold over from the old 3 and 4 engine jets and is really not required on ANY twin. Aircraft certification requires an aircraft to be able to land at MTOW with a touchdown vertical speed of 360 FPM and suffer no damage. INfact the overweight landing inspection with less than 360 fpm consists simply of a visual inspection of the tires. Go beyond 360 of course and it gets expensive.

At max landing weight the aircraft is certified for a 660 fpm impact with no damage (and let me tell you that is JARRING).

The reason fuel dump was on aircraft was for 3 and 4 engine aircraft to improve your position should you lose a second engine, and to guartantee performance (GO around etc....)

It is never necesary to dump fuel in a twin, and haveing made 3 VERY overweight landings in my career I can tell you that landing overweight is the easiest smoothest landing you will ever make, though you will use more brakes to slow down... (Compare that with landing near the BOW of the aircraft, ohmygod do those hurt)

Cheers
Wino

[ecj]

Maxblow

If you are operating from the UK speak to Peter Tait at CHIRPS.

Usually has the desired results on the safety front.

[Hand Solo]

Intruder-

Hmmm... Engine out, above MLW... Where's the "safety" in that?!?

If I were management, I'd sure find fault with that! What is your go-around performance under those conditions

The "safety" in that is not burning holes in the sky for three hours on a single engine whilst you wait to get below max landing weight. Go-around perfromance under those conditions is perfectly adequate, unless the temperature is above about 45C and the elevation is above 5000ft, in which case we'd just have to use a lower flap setting. Its a good job you're not management!

[MaxBlow]

By the time we were ready for appr. the dump has been finished.
No additional time wasted to dump down to MLW.
Have been blamed to put a 'perfectly' working machine and pax knowingly into an emergency situation.
Well, what can you say to that.
Thanks for your comments. I'm outahere

[xyz_pilot]

We still have the BIG prob of why a know prob with the ac was nit "in the book"???

[kumul1]

Have to agree with Wino on this one. EK, for eg, have opted for fuel dumping on their A330-200 because of some of their hot and high destinations and the all important single engine climb out in the G/A.
They do allow for overweight landings, in an emergency provided you meet the approach climb criteria and complete the overweight landing checklist, which calls for a V/S at touchdown for no greater than 360 ft/min.

keep smiling.

[PAXboy]

As an outsider ... I am not sure if the carrier were more concerned by;
1) The return
2) Flushing the go-juice
3) Their need to cover that the log had not been correctly written up - possibly by a permanent member of staff. Possibly a senior member of staff!