I was under the impression that declared MTOW may change for economical reasons, perhaps we are referring to the same issue?

re from captain87
 

For Pennellino only

I study for A320 type-rating using all the material scheduled for a type-certification. This includes CBT, FCOM's, QRH, Airbus updates and notes, Professional Training Videos. But I'd like to underline that I do it (since 6 months) as secondary study since I'm now studying for ATPL Course.

I wouldn't write any kind of posts basing on the Wilco Manuals (an insignificant reference for who haven't a good knowledge of the aircraft).
A further consideration have to be done: do you retain that the Wilco A320 Family is a good product ?

I personally think no. Why ? No simulations of whole systems logic, no abnormal procedures application with flight simulator, no entire MCDU functions implementation etc.

Kind regards !

I was under the impression that declared MTOW may change for economical reasons

By whatever name known, air nav charges usually are predicated on MTOW. Hence some operators negotiate a "recertification" to reduce MTOW (and ANCs) where their operation doesn't require the higher MTOW value.

This will depend on regulator philosophy in the particular State.

C87 - on Airbus, when necessary, the ECAM will tell you, in orange or red, to LAND ASAP.

re from captain87
 

Yes, is true, accordingly to the level of failure.

And so ? ... regards !!!

Well I don't know neither wilco (I don't play MFS for my training) nor the real airbus since I actually fly another type,anyway I'd suggest you to study just ATPL books and POH of aircraft on which you are learning VFR/IFR flight.You will have time to read a lot of stuff about airbus,boeing,fokker or whatever jet/turboprop you'll fly,doing it with a strengthened background and being assessed by professional instructors throughout ground and simulator sessions.Enjoy your 19 yo,meet girls and fly the Cessna/Piper doing your best to pass CPL exams.

Bye

:ok:

On topic: in any time critical situation.

re from captain87
 

For Pennellino,

Probably you've reason but I am not able to let my flight manuals just neither for few seconds ... I succed to find the time to study becouse the fly is my life, my vocation ... While I study for A320 I enjoy and each thing I learn it's a great target for me ....
Besides I think that once finished the ATPL Course, a type-rating is necessary, and I've already chosen the A320.
Obviously I undertake himself for both studying the ATPL and A320.

I appreciate your suggestion and I thank you for having done it !

Kind regards !!!

Tee Hee, would be worse if it was from a guy....maybe too many beers on the layover !!

Guys,

I've got about 10 years on the 734's.( no jettison)

During sim checks, they like to point out both scenarios.

Occasions when you have the luxury of time, you of course reduce your landing weight.

When as the Commander, YOU DECIDE, that you have to land ASAP, then the landing weight becomes secondary, and a postflight issue. There is literature explaining and suggesting techniques for this scenario, ie an overweight landing.

I have , on occasion, when the actual TKOF weight is high, discussed and briefed and identified the procedure from the manuals at the preflight stage.

Techniques may differ between model and make, and it is important to realise this and be familiar with it.

I would not confine it to any specific scenario. Good judgement, that hopefully comes with that fourth bar, should be sufficient.

... actually aircrafts are not certified for an auto land above MLW.
alb.///

overweight landings
 

hello every one,
overweight landings seem a very interesting topic, judging from some threads above. i did some research into the matter & found what follows :
1) definition : overweight landing is when you land at max landingweigth + 2%.
2) certification issues for the manufacturers : A) aircraft structure must be resistent for a landing at Max Take Off Weight(MTOW) with a rate of descent of 360ft/min. B) at[ MTOW - 15min of emergency fuel ], the aircraft must meet min regulatory go-around gradients. if not, a jettisson fuel system is required.
3) for maintenance : A) landing at mlw + 2%, ok(not considered overwt as per definition). B) landing at > (mlw + 2%) & < (mlw + 5%), if soft ldg = rod <300ft/min = ok; if hard ldg = rod > 600ft/min, then inspection as per maintenance manual required. C) landing at >( mlw + 5%), then inspection required in all cases. all this info is retrievable from the on board data monitoring system in addition of faithfull techlog entries by the operating aircrew.
4) for operators & aircrew : operators need to provide their crews with overweight landing policy & technical guidelines from the manufacturer to actually perform a safe overwt landing.
here an example of such a policy:
overwt landing RECOMMENDED: -any malfunction that seriously affect airworthiness of the aircraft. - any condition where a delay in landing might be detrimental to safety. - one engine inop. - serious illness amongst crew or pax requiring immediate medecal attention. overwt ldg PERMITTED : - a malfunction not directly affecting the airworthiness of the aircraft. - an unplanned diversion. overwt ldg NOT RECOMMENDED: - complete hydraulic fail (affecting braking perfo). - tire burst/fail. - flight control troubles that adversely affect the handling of the aircraft. note: word "prohibited" is not used in this policy example.
last but not least, her some tech guidelines, once decision to land overwt is taken. e.g. for b738ng : use flap 30° for better margin to flap placard speed.
you may configure next flap as much as 20kts below normal maneuver speeds( again for increased margin to flap placard speed). burn fuel as much as possible(early gear down). long rwy, no tailwinds, or negative slopes, limit wind additives to flap placard speed, no long ldg, max reverse, use all rwy to minimise brake temp, no early turn off etc.
5) no auto lands
6) conclusion : always use common sense in dealing with such problems & if you safely can avoid them : do.
hope i did not write to many mistakes.
kind regards,
bm

Had a check airman at our big airline in USA ask what I would do if I took off from US and found non of the lavs were working on a trip to Europe. I said I would return and land. He said would you declare an emergency. I said no. He said if you land overweight you have to declare an emergency. I said OK. I didn't say I only said that to pass my check ride not that I would really do it. My friend declared an emegency because of this same thinking and got to watch all the fire trucks greet him when he landed overweight on a 13.000 ft runway. Do what ever you want. I try not to get paranoid over the simple things. Some day it might bite you but using logic worked for me. Now I am retired so it doesn't matter.

I would be so glad to see that! I bet he was too. I can't see the brakes from where I sit but the fire crews can, and although I don't know how much overweight your friends landing was, I would suspect that the brakes were very hot and there is a real possibility of a brake fire on any overweight landing.

It was a two hour flight so I dought he even touched the brakes above 80 knots like a normal landing but with 13.000 feet of runway you wouldn't need any brakes at all just reverse to a full stop with no brakes. Our airline encouraged us to land overweight. The day my radar crapped out on takeoff roll hitting a bump on the runway so dumped fuel on the 727 and came back and landed because it was required for the South American flight. We had to justify not landing overweight if it didn't cause more risk than landing overweight. I didn't agree with their thinking that landing overweight was as safe as landing at MLW so dumped a lot of fuel and came back and landed. The check airman that said we had to declare an emergency convinced me dumping fuel versus declaring an emergency was the way to go. I, personally, would just land overweight on a long runway and not use brakes until slow. If you get paranoid about they are out to get you then I hope you are close to retirement.

blackmail: excellent piece of informaton! :ok:

So does my employer. Question aimed at NoD was genuine and still stands: Is it really true that some operators change MLW for commercial reasons?

FD (the un-real)

FD - like you, I have seen MTOM (tut tut:) ) change several times for 'commercial' reasons but I have never seen the MLM (tut tut:) ) change for that. Maybe airports/authorities are now charging on MLM?

I just drive the thing, don't pay the bills etc. ;) We are on our 3rd change for the A319 in approx a year, and each change alters the MTOW, Max Taxi Wt, MLW and MZFW... I am not sure which is the "driver" for change - one would think MTOW - but all seem to change for some reason :hmm:

tut-tut: Ah, the sound of me feeling guilty :ouch: Yet it seems that Airbus limits the field for it's products to 9,81 ms-2 scenarios. This way they never will sell a nut to Virgin Galactic. :)

NoD: Puzzling, is it not? I operate comparative A319, certified with multiple MTOW. Provided by manufacturer, page in the bible, section limitations, gives multiple mass variants for max taxi and TOW. MZFW, minimum W and FLW remain unchanged for each of the MTOWs. A note reads: Multiple MTOW are certified. A placard fitted on the aircraft must reflect the current MTOW.

If I understand correctly, you provide services to a very cost savvy operator. All companies attempt to save any €-cent, but only few extend the efforts beyond "industry's best practice" such as fitting an extra pair of owerwing exits. The cockpit placard from last-year aircraft gives only MTOM, this year's (msn 3043&3094) have also MZFW and MLW included. Until today I presumed it was introduced for pilots to have all data at one spot, however now it seems that it may have been done on purpouse as probably some charges could be tied to MLW/MZFW.

To keep thread on track to it's final station, the Airbus Bible - section Limitations also reads: "In exceptional circumstances (inflight turnback or diversion), an immediate landing at weight above maximum landing weight is permitted, provided the pilot follows the overweight landing procedure."
Even if it did not, there's another base-rule we all surely do have coded in our DNA: ICAO Annex 2 to THE Convention: 2.4 AUTHORITY OF PILOT-IN-COMMAND OF AN AIRCRAFT: The pilot-in-command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command.

FD
(the un-real)

During the pre flight brief I always remind the FO that the landing weight is not a consideration if we have a fire on board or an acute medical emergency.
87, you seem to have a strange grasp of the reality of flying an aeroplane. The pressurisation has nothing to do with an overweight landing or the rate of decent. You will find that reality will teach you that the books are for guidance. Nothing in them precludes the Captain from making any decision he feels will result in a safer outcome to any event he is confronted with.

87,

Your book collection is impressive, but you really have stop pretending to be an A320 pilot.

Mutt

Regarding Blackmail's post (#52)

There is an ongoing debate about what you mentioned.

Situation: yo see you are going to land MLW<LW<MLW+2%, operation normal and no need to rush.

What do you do?

1) No worries, just land at that weight

2) Do something to reduce your LW<MLW

3) This issue is not even worth being discussed

Thanks for your replies

So a thread that has been dead for 1415 days and you dig it up... because?

I am interested to see how C87 would cope with a situation such as what the Qantas pilots were faced with on the a380 incident. His checklists may as well be chucked out the window. As a student pilot I always have one thing that I prioritize for myself should an inflight emergency occur and that is "Fly the bloody thing" To hell with the rules if they get in the way of safety

C87, i sure hope you wake up and realize there is more to being a pilot than following what a book tells you so that if Im ever pax on a plane you are PIC on and an emergency happens you deal with it in the best to your ability rather than religiously following a manual written by someone whos seat isn't moving.

Since someone has 'exhumed' this thread, I seem to recall that in the dim and distant days when I had to account and charge for Eurocontrol fees, they were based on MLW which may explain NoD's shenanigans. This 'new' MLW would be a planning value only and would have no effect on an 'overweight' landing, and indeed temporary increases would be allowable if required back to any value below structural. If that is the case I would expect, however, that BA would ensure that crews were aware of the STRUCTURAL limit rather than the 'commercial' limit to enable sound judgement to be made.

As a footnote, as said earlier, it always used to be the case that an a/c should be capable (ie not falling apart) of a 'reasonably controlled' re-landing up to structural MTOW.

aviatorhi, the reason is simple: I did a search and this thread and more specifically post #52 were very related to an ongoing debate we are having these days. I think I stated this in my introduction. I have tried to say it in different words and hope this has satisfied your curiosity.

If you feel like it you may now tell me if it is 1, 2 or 3. Your first answer seems to indicate that the third answer could likely be your choice.

For clarification this debate has nothing to do with charges. I can't see how the other answers relate to my question so 3 it is again.

Other opinions are welcome, thanks

To answer the original question - when it is necessary.

Landing overweight in any airplane is no big deal but requires an inspection. Try to minimize the sink rate at touchdown and you won't break anything. Usually you have a reason because landing overweight is safer than burning or if possible dumping fuel. I only had to dump fuel once and it was for a radar failure that would not allow me to fly into a tropical storm area going to South America with no radar ATC. The radar was already written up and ground checked ok so I saw it fail on the runway right before liftoff so expected it to happen. Some times it is good to punish your airline for giving you a plane you know is still broke but maintenance signed off.

Pidge you say when it is necessary. I stated operation normal, no need to rush or save fuel for wx etc. So you seem to imply that if not necessary you don't land overweight.

Bubbers44

Same thing, I'm not talking about having some emergency or urgency situation. Would you land MLW<LW<MLW+2% without a good reason like it's no big deal?

Thanks

Key points for overweight Landing
 

Overweight landings are incompatible with flight control problems and anything affecting the braking capacity.

It is always a good idea to have a look at the FPPM to get an idea what the Vmbe is at MTOW and at what weight you hit the max tire speed.

Often you will see that, unless it is warm and the field elevation is high you will have ample performance.

Using max brakes is often not a good idea. Use full runway to reduce the load on the brakes.

When would an overweight landing be considered the lowest risk option -apart from the obvious cases of ECAM/QRH stating "Land ASAP" or similar?

Unless my AFM says any different, my philosophy has always been when down to one engine / one genrator / one hydraulic system (braking requirements permitting) / medical emergency. Press problems, other required equipment or commercial considerations would not merit it - but given the design criteria applied to FAR/JAR25 aircraft, a properly executed OWL at a runway of suitable length and with suitable weather is a non-event.

I'd be thinking very carefully about eroding landing and missed approach safety margins for a medical emergency.

Sciolistes,

I don't think anyone here has suggested you attempt landing overweight if you can't meet landing distance and missed approach requirements.

Sure - the margins will not be the same as if you landed at the same airport at MLM - but we operate our aircraft near the requirements often - taking off a couple of ton under RTOM or landing close to RLM. No pilots woth their salt would refuse operating close to the limit as long as you are positively on the safe side - the same principle should apply during a medical emergency.

Other than that, I agree with what I percieve your sentiment to be - namely that we should never consider endangering the aircraft or its occupants just because some poor soul has keeled over in the cabin.

Most old FREIGHTDOGS know that an overweight landing is something that was allmost the norm as customers often padded their weights. May be a different story today but I have been on at least 2 flights that we had to divert early for extra fuel due to excess load. Also all aircraft are designed to specs well above what they are certified for, other than flight chararistics the landing is less likely to result in damage than on a light aircraft on a hard landing.

Loved watching old 74c's land using aerodynamic breaking, hell if you have the RWY they saved brakes and made their turnoff. Understand it is a taboo subject as procedure trumps skill these days.

I do not see where a heavy landing is much of an issue with narrow body aircraft, hell if you have the rwy length just add the speed you feel safe with. Once again skill over procedure that is not written into your operating manual.

Empty Cruise,

Quite so sir and precisely my point. I agree that one could at least consider (carefully) an overweight landing for such a situation, but equally one must be able to determine when to reject such an idea.

Grounded27,

The idea that we don't actually know if we are overweight, given some dodgy cargo, isn't an argument. Obviously, you may already be unknowingly overweight when deciding to land knowingly overweight!

Evaluating when to deviate from procedure, is its self SOP. Nothing to do with flying skill, simply judgement of a specific situation.

Unfortunately judgement is a skill, when operating an aircraft it becomes a flying skill...

Ok overweights should be non event. Are you impliying that 2% overweight is not even considered overweight so you can do it any odd time you want without a good reason?

Or if you had the choice and no pressure of any kind would you burn that 2% weight?

Burn the 2%, Ant - MLM is just that, a maximum. Also, if you do it off base and depart again without the owerweight landing inspection, you'll have a very hard case to argue in court when summat happens to the aircraft brake/tyre/gear-systems 10 sectors later and they start looking at what the aircraft was doing previously. Might not have anything to do with cause and effect, but enough for the prosecution to pounce on...

Ouch :}

Christo

Empty Cruise as you may well have guessed I agree with you that this overweight has to be taken care of. The debate arises because our Operations Manual says that under 2% no report, much less inspection is required hence some pilots treat the issue as if LW<MLW+2% is NOT an overweight landing. Post #52 seems to go along the latter.