RobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3763 posts, RR: 20 Posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4017 times:
I was listening earlier to NYC ARINC working the Caribbean sector and noted AAL1385 JFK-BGI declare a medical emergency as a 70yr old male pax had a heart condition. When transferred to ZNY Bermuda sector on VHF he stated that it would be an overweight landing with 185 people on board and 35600 lbs of fuel. As this was a 757 (N653A) with no fuel dumping capability, what exactly would be the implications of the overweight landing?
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11547 posts, RR: 27 Reply 1, posted (4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 3980 times:
Quoting RobK (Thread starter): what exactly would be the implications of the overweight landing?
Mostly just a required inspection before the plane can return to service. Also I think it requires that firefighters be called for the landing and inspect the aircraft afterwards in case of a brake fire.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
aar90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3342 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 3982 times:
Quoting RobK (Thread starter): what exactly would be the implications of the overweight landing?
AA requires its pilots to declare an Emergency when preparing to land overweight and to record the approximate GW and descent rate (fpm) at touchdown in the maintenance logbook. I have had to do this many times in my career. Latest one was last month with a quick stop at IND for.... pax medical situation. FL380 to parked at the gate in 12 minutes. The contract maintenance person completed the Overweight Landing Inspection in less time than it took to get the pax off the plane. IOW -- an overweight landing really is "no big deal" (assuming the landing was "normal" in all other respects).
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
Be77 From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 311 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
Quoting aar90 (Reply 2): FL380 to parked at the gate in 12 minutes
What airline is using Dauntless's at 38,000 feet?
That's a vertical speed of alnost 40 mph, without considering manuevering and of course not rolling an overweight A/C up into a ball on touchdown.
Hope the pax made it, and if not, sounds like it wasn't for lack of trying.
aar90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3342 posts, RR: 51 Reply 6, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3595 times:
Quoting Be77 (Reply 4): What airline is using Dauntless's at 38,000 feet?
That's a vertical speed of alnost 40 mph, without considering manuevering and of course not rolling an overweight A/C up into a ball on touchdown.
Hope the pax made it, and if not, sounds like it wasn't for lack of trying.
B738. Having hands-on experience with similar situations previously (7 mins FL410-stopped at LAX in sim & previous heart attack at FL350) made this maneuver pretty easy. ~6 mins for the descent; ~4 minutes for the "approach" (ATC slowed us earlier than I wanted to clear some traffic); ~1 minute on the runway and.... a right turn straight into the open gate (with waiting paramedics, agent & ground crew).
Pax actually tried to refuse treatment by paramedics after they got him off the plane (no symptoms) and only relented to going to the hospital when I told him the only way he was getting back on the plane was with a physician's medical release -- I had 2 physicians telling me he needed an Emergency Room.... IMMEDIATELY. from the 8 guys in blue uniforms when he finally said "yes."
Quoting SAAFNAV (Reply 5): You also have to reduse the vertical speed at touchdown to a minimum.
If you land hard at overweight, things won't be as rosy
Touchdown was a "roll-on" at less than 100fpm.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 2616 posts, RR: 19 Reply 7, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3563 times:
When we first took delivery of our 757's at CAL the flight manual recommended an Autoland, if possible when landing overweight.
The thought was this would generally be a softer touchdown than a manual landing.
With more experience operating this type it was realised this was not really the case. Autolanding, while predictable, reliable, reasonably accurate and safe is often not really that smooth / soft.
A competent Pilot can do a better job.
It's no L1011 !
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
CitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2098 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3469 times:
Quoting aar90 (Reply 2): The contract maintenance person completed the Overweight Landing Inspection in less time than it took to get the pax off the plane. IOW -- an overweight landing really is "no big deal" (assuming the landing was "normal" in all other respects).
Per Boeing's newsletter "Overweight Landings or Fuel Jettison, What to Consider":
The Phase I or A-check conditional inspection can typically be accomplished in two to four labor hours. This kind of inspection is generally not a problem because an airplane that has returned or diverted typically has a problem that takes longer to clear than the inspection itself.
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 3302 posts, RR: 25 Reply 11, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3374 times:
I had a similar occurrence over YQT where we did an overweight landing. Like above, FL370 to parked on the ramp (they did not have a B767 capable gate) in less than 10 minutes.
Another consideration is performance. Runway length requirements for dry/wet/contaminated conditions can increase exponentially when the LW goes above MLW. Also, after such a landing, brake temperatures can become an issue ... right up to the "don't let the ramp agents anywhere near the main gear" phase!
After the passenger, and his wife left the aircraft, and their baggage was removed, and the aircraft was refueled .... we still had another 40 minutes to wait for brake cooling!
Two more swords and I am queen of the Monkey People!
Quoting longhauler (Reply 11): FL370 to parked on the ramp (they did not have a B767 capable gate) in less than 10 minutes.
Interesting...we could swap faceplates - my ASI for your VSI. Your descent rates are approaching my cruise speeds
I like to think I would have figured it out myself if I had I thought about the descent capabilities of something that cruises at .85 Mach, but like everything else about flight it is still amazing! I know the C-17 is capable of even more stunning performance, but that's part of the design requirements and intended use so not surprising as for 738 or 767 which probably didn't include terms like 'combat zone' anywhere in the requirement's gathering.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 14, posted (4 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3186 times:
FAA regulations state that an airplane must be able to land at it's certified MTOW, otherwise it must be equipped with fuel dumping capabilities.
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 3302 posts, RR: 25 Reply 15, posted (4 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3165 times:
Quoting Be77 (Reply 13): Interesting...we could swap faceplates - my ASI for your VSI. Your descent rates are approaching my cruise speeds
I like to think I would have figured it out myself if I had I thought about the descent capabilities of something that cruises at .85 Mach, but like everything else about flight it is still amazing
It's kind of an odd concept, but at a constant mach descent, your IAS is increasing, so descent rates are pretty impressive. About 8000 fpm or so, down to around 20,000', then around 4000 fpm from there. In a medical emergency all bets are off with regard to 250 Kts below 10,000', so we kept 350 knots to about 15 miles final at 3000'agl, then a comfortable deceleration to about 170kts at the marker to approx 135 knots Vapp at touchdown.
Everyone was waiting for us on the ramp when we shut down.
Two more swords and I am queen of the Monkey People!
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 15102 posts, RR: 69 Reply 16, posted (4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3093 times:
Quoting Be77 (Reply 13): I like to think I would have figured it out myself if I had I thought about the descent capabilities of something that cruises at .85 Mach, but like everything else about flight it is still amazing! I know the C-17 is capable of even more stunning performance, but that's part of the design requirements and intended use so not surprising as for 738 or 767 which probably didn't include terms like 'combat zone' anywhere in the requirement's gathering.
Airliners seldom go close to the edge of their envelope. The C-17, in some respects a combat aircraft, if operated on the bleeding edge far more often.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 2616 posts, RR: 19 Reply 17, posted (4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3079 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 14): FAA regulations state that an airplane must be able to land at it's certified MTOW, otherwise it must be equipped with fuel dumping capabilities.
Regardless of whether there is a fuel jettison capability fitted all transport category Aircraft must be able to land at their maximum take off weight.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11032 posts, RR: 72 Reply 18, posted (4 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2918 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 7): When we first took delivery of our 757's at CAL the flight manual recommended an Autoland, if possible when landing overweight.
The thought was this would generally be a softer touchdown than a manual landing.
With more experience operating this type it was realised this was not really the case. Autolanding, while predictable, reliable, reasonably accurate and safe is often not really that smooth / soft.
I think the thought process there is that the autoland sink rate is very consistent and low enough to not damage the airframe. A human pilot can absolutely do a softer landing but they can also screw up and hit too hard...the autoland is less likely to do that. The autoland flare on a Boeing is designed to plant the gear quickly and safetly and get the brakes on...as you say, it is not particularly smooth or soft but it is very effective.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 14):
FAA regulations state that an airplane must be able to land at it's certified MTOW, otherwise it must be equipped with fuel dumping capabilities.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 17): Regardless of whether there is a fuel jettison capability fitted all transport category Aircraft must be able to land at their maximum take off weight.
Physically yes, but not from a certification point of view.
darksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 189 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2882 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 18): Note that the MLW is significantly below the MTOW and no 737 has a fuel dump system.
They do if you can find a way to keep fueling past the VTO,
Sorry, couldn't resist that one.
Quoting aar90 (Reply 2): IOW -- an overweight landing really is "no big deal" (assuming the landing was "normal" in all other respects).
More or less. A previous employer of mine required subsequent follow-up inspections at the next overnight.
Enmity is equal to Wrath x The Speed of Fright Squared
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11032 posts, RR: 72 Reply 20, posted (4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2859 times:
Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 19):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 18):
Note that the MLW is significantly below the MTOW and no 737 has a fuel dump system.
They do if you can find a way to keep fueling past the VTO
There's actually another way...if you snap-roll most twins with the main tanks about half full you can blow the wingtip off with the inertial load of the fuel hitting the end of the wing. Instant fuel dump! Not particularly precise though...
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 2616 posts, RR: 19 Reply 21, posted (4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2817 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 18):
I think the thought process there is that the autoland sink rate is very consistent and low enough to not damage the airframe. A human pilot can absolutely do a softer landing but they can also screw up and hit too hard...the autoland is less likely to do that. The autoland flare on a Boeing is designed to plant the gear quickly and safetly and get the brakes on...as you say, it is not particularly smooth or soft but it is very effective.
This recommendation was removed from our Flight Manual years ago. Autoland may be effective, but I have done a few that were more than 'firm'
As I said it is now recommended we do a manual landing in an overweight condition.
The statistics have shown that a human Pilot can generally do better (most of the time)
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11032 posts, RR: 72 Reply 23, posted (4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2594 times:
Quoting Fabo (Reply 22): MLW does not equal maximum weight that the aircraft can land with.
Absolutely true.
Quoting Fabo (Reply 22): I am in no doubt that a 737 can land safely on MTOW and over.
All conventional jets can land safely at MTOW, otherwise they wouldn't be able to takeoff.
Keep in mind that I was replying to this:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 14): FAA regulations state that an airplane must be able to land at it's certified MTOW, otherwise it must be equipped with fuel dumping capabilities.
The regulatory determination for whether you need fuel dump is not tied to your ability to land at MTOW, otherwise nobody would need fuel dump systems.
faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2492 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 20): There's actually another way...if you snap-roll most twins with the main tanks about half full you can blow the wingtip off with the inertial load of the fuel hitting the end of the wing. Instant fuel dump! Not particularly precise though...
Now there's an idea! Any incident reports involving such wingtip blow-offs with pics perhaps?
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8537 posts, RR: 100 Reply 25, posted (4 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2500 times:
Quoting aar90 (Reply 2): IOW -- an overweight landing really is "no big deal" (assuming the landing was "normal" in all other respects).
As long as the peak G-force is low enough. Newer aircraft measure that. If the gear forces the body to decelerate more than Xg (where X is usally about 2.0g, sometimes more or less), the plane needs much more than the inspections described.
So take MLW*xG, if that is less than the "Overweight landing weight" * "Landing G force" the plane is still flyable post routine inspections.
While those numbers are less than 2.5g, that sticks in my mind as the design number. However, there is data aliasing and thus the measured threshold must be less.
Quoting Be77 (Reply 4): What airline is using Dauntless's at 38,000 feet?
Sure it wasn't a Stuka?
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 14): FAA regulations state that an airplane must be able to land at it's certified MTOW,
???? I missed that. What FAR?
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 18): Physically yes, but not from a certification point of view.
If you change that to theoretically yes, we are in 100% agreement.
I know how to take off at 1.0g. I know of no way to land with certainty less than 1.05g and that would be an aircraft 'floating' upon the gear.
yeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 328 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (4 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2404 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25): As long as the peak G-force is low enough. Newer aircraft measure that. If the gear forces the body to decelerate more than Xg (where X is usally about 2.0g, sometimes more or less), the plane needs much more than the inspections described.
On a 737, what you describe would require a phase 1B overweight landing conditional inspection and a phase 1 hard landing conditional inspection. A hard landing inspection is quite a bit more involved than the overweight inspection and could be a big deal at a outstation. If any damage is found on either inspection a phase 2 inspection is required and is a big deal. I can only imagine the manpower required on a 747 or A380.
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 30166 posts, RR: 61 Reply 27, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2177 times:
Quoting yeelep (Reply 26): A hard landing inspection is quite a bit more involved than the overweight inspection and could be a big deal at a outstation.
Especially if the phase 1 is not sucessful, then the requirement is to Jack the Aircraft for phase 2 check, needing a Hangar.Tough at Outstation.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3763 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11547 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 30166 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 311 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Mar 2010, 121 posts, 
from the 8 guys in blue uniforms when he finally said "yes." 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 15102 posts, 
From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 826 posts, 
From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1327 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
