SeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6639 times:
I've read on this forum that only 752s produced after a certain point can be upgraded to the 255klb MTOW. Does anyone happen to know if that is correct, and, if so, at what line number the switchover happened?
I would hypothesize that as lighter aircraft increasingly take over less demanding 752 missions, the difference in value to operators (FedEx notwithstanding) between 255k-capable birds and others will grow progressively bigger.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
TZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1420 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6544 times:
My understanding here is that any 757-200 is capable of the higher MTOW provided the operator pays Boeing for the higher gross weight Master Change that includes the upgraded Flight Manual allowing the higher weights.
The aircraft is structurally capable, but can only be authorized with a Flight Manual change. This is easiest to got to Boeing as they built the aircraft, but it costs in the high six figures to $ 1 million and is customer specific and cannot be transferred if the aircraft changes owners.
A third party engineering firm could obtain a gross weight increase STC with Flight Manual Supplement, but the load analysis required would be cost prohibitive. I know that there are some third party MTOW increases for the 727, but not aware of any for the 757 especially with the increased burden of proof the FAA requires for STCs within the last 10-15 years.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
SDF880 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 124 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 6408 times:
I saw this done at one of the airlines I worked for. I think it was 4 of the 757's went from 250K to 255K MTOW and had to go through the process mentioned on the previous post.
I'm not sure how Fed-Ex will us their 757's. On the domestic side landing weight is the the limiting issue most of the time. I could see if FX is going to use some of them for ETOPS missions the 255K increased weight might be nice to have.
TZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1420 posts, RR: 9 Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6374 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 3): Whats contributes to the increase in MTOW on the B757 in terms of Equipment used?
Or is it only structural.
Nothing. Its a paper change only. The aircraft has built-in capability that Boeing did not use in the initial certification. That is why I stated if one wants it, you have to pay for the paper that says so since Boeing is the only one that truly knows its structural capability as the OEM. However, another company could do the same thing and issue an AFM supplement, but the analysis to prove it would be very expensive as loads data would have to be developed and probably not any cheaper than what Boeing charges.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
DingDong From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 661 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6230 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 6): Any approximation on the cost involved here.
Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 1): The aircraft is structurally capable, but can only be authorized with a Flight Manual change. This is easiest to got to Boeing as they built the aircraft, but it costs in the high six figures to $ 1 million and is customer specific and cannot be transferred if the aircraft changes owners.
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6520 posts, RR: 11 Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5274 times:
An old thread I know but I asked this same question in another thread. It's quite amazing, the capabilities of the 757. Even some many years prior, it was capable of heavy status but never used it for the most part.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
Lotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5260 times:
Line 298 and above were built with max weight capability in the factory. Line 210 to 297 can be retrofit with a fuse pin replacement. Earlier build frames back to line 125 can be retrofit with landing gear and some fuselage reinforcements, but that would be very expensive.
Of course, you will also need the revised manuals.
Wagz From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 504 posts, RR: 18 Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4891 times:
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 12): A great idea so there is no issue with ATC separation, they are all simply a B752, not a "Heavy" for separation.
Yet another reason.......WORK HARD, FLY RIGHT.
So I take it CO doesn't file their birds as Heavy then either? Up here at PHL its quite annoying as US' ETOPS birds are all 255,500 apparently but they never get filed as Heavy either. Then all the sudden they call for taxi and are calling themselves a Heavy. At that point its time to bug Flight Data to have them ammend the type to H/B752.
We never get CO 752s in PHL (except for EWR diversions on occasion), so do their pilots ever call themselves heavies down there?
I think Big Foot is blurry, Its not the photographers fault. Theres a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside
DescendVia From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4878 times:
Not to chime in on an old topic or go off topic but the MTOW on the 757 can be 255K but its actually limited a lot depending on the flight in regards to single engine driftdown.
As I know it......
FAR 121.191(a)(1) or called Method 1: requires the MTOG (MTOW) to be limited.
FAR 121.191(a)(2) or called Method 2: route of flight is set to provide appropriate dirftdown alternates. This starts at FL240 and has taken into account the TAFs, NOTAMS, etc. for the selected airports. It also shows that the dirftdown routes route will provide 2000 feet obstacle clearance and 5 miles on either side of the route.
Both can actually be applied on the same flight as well and if the flight is planned at or below FL240, only Method 1 is allowed.
This is stuff is only required for airplanes that pretty much can't dump fuel. So for example, the MTOW on the 767-300 stays constant at 470,000 but the on the 757 it will very.
I must confess that I actually looked up most of this stuff as I went along because unfortunately I'm not that much of a brianyack
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4722 posts, RR: 25 Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4839 times:
Quoting Wagz (Reply 13): So I take it CO doesn't file their birds as Heavy then either?
You are correct, CO does not file the B752's as "Heavy". They made that decision when the weight was lowered from the 300,000 lbs down to the current 255,000 lbs to define the "Heavy" or not.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4722 posts, RR: 25 Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4771 times:
Quoting Wagz (Reply 13): so do their pilots ever call themselves heavies down there?
Not too often, but since the crews are typed in the B756 and fly all of them, the 752/753 and 762/764 that they would certainly get crossed up with 3 out of 4 being a "Heavy" you'd think the 200's would be a canidate for them adding it on at the end of the flight number!!
Quoting Lax25r (Reply 16): I don't understand how they couldn't file as a heavy. If their MTOW is above 255,000, to me it isn't up to CO whether to file as a heavy or not.
It is simple, they restrict the -200's to less less than 255,000 lbs so not an issue. Yes it is up to them however, they simply don't.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4707 times:
Quoting DescendVia (Reply 14): your local time (2 days 1 hour 28 minutes ago) and read 170 times:
Not to chime in on an old topic or go off topic but the MTOW on the 757 can be 255K but its actually limited a lot depending on the flight in regards to single engine driftdown.
As I know it......
FAR 121.191(a)(1) or called Method 1: requires the MTOG (MTOW) to be limited.
FAR 121.191(a)(2) or called Method 2: route of flight is set to provide appropriate dirftdown alternates. This starts at FL240 and has taken into account the TAFs, NOTAMS, etc. for the selected airports. It also shows that the dirftdown routes route will provide 2000 feet obstacle clearance and 5 miles on either side of the route.
Both can actually be applied on the same flight as well and if the flight is planned at or below FL240, only Method 1 is allowed.
This is stuff is only required for airplanes that pretty much can't dump fuel. So for example, the MTOW on the 767-300 stays constant at 470,000 but the on the 757 it will very.
I must confess that I actually looked up most of this stuff as I went along because unfortunately I'm not that much of a brianyack
Your point is well made DecendVia, however for the sake of this conversation we have been discussing Maximum Gross Take Off Weight with no other performance considerations taken into account.
Incidentally, MTOW on the 763 is 412,000 lbs, even the -400 max is 'only' 450,000 !
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7448 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4704 times:
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 17): It is simple, they restrict the -200's to less less than 255,000 lbs so not an issue. Yes it is up to them however, they simply don't.
The way I read the rule, if your MTOW is at 255,001 pounds or above, then legal identification of the aircraft would be Heavy. If they are not saying Heavy, they may not be correctly identifying their aircraft weight class, legally.
Anyway, certainly not a "big deal," but it is an important rule. You don't want an A380 forgetting to say "heavy."
Attributed to FAA.gov:
"Weight class is coded into three ordered levels: Small aircraft are those of
41,000 lbs. or less maximum certificated takeoff weight;
Large aircraft are those of more than 41,000 lbs. up to
255,000 lbs. maximum certifi cated takeoff weight; Heavy
aircraft are those capable of takeoff weights of more than
255,000 lbs. whether or not they are operating at this
weight during a particular phase of flight"
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4722 posts, RR: 25 Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4689 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 19): The way I read the rule, if your MTOW is at 255,001 pounds or above, then legal identification of the aircraft would be Heavy. If they are not saying Heavy, they may not be correctly identifying their aircraft weight class, legally.
So what are you really saying?
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
I don't know the real truth, but there has been word on a.net that certain ATC people are pissed that Heavy aircraft are not identifying themselves like they should.
Qantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1252 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4640 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 19): You don't want an A380 forgetting to say "heavy."
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4722 posts, RR: 25 Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4626 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 22): I don't know the real truth, but there has been word on a.net that certain ATC people are pissed that Heavy aircraft are not identifying themselves like they should.
That is pretty weak if true, there are certainly other ways to ID if an aircraft is a "Heavy" or not. I'd be surprised if that was actually the case, there is much more to be pissed about than the lack of "Heavy" on the radio!
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
