Airxliban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4492 posts, RR: 55 Posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3358 times:
I was on AA 30 last night, red eye from LAX to JFK on a 762ER, N335AA, and I have a question regarding fuel calculations.
Shortly after takeoff from 25R (around 11:45pm local time) the purser (French) came on the PA system and asked if there was a doctor on board. This was followed, about 2 minutes later, by an announcement saying that we had a medical emergency and were going to return to LAX.
We turned west and headed out over the ocean then landed on 7L and taxied back to T4. I didn't time it, but the whole thing couldn't taken more than 10 minutes. The ill passenger disembarked and we refueled, completed paperwork, performed a walk around and then took off again, about 1:30am local time for a late arrival into JFK the next morning.
Question - the captain mentioned that we had landed about 5,000 lbs over weight. However, we still refueled. I assume this means that we dumped fuel, although I cannot be sure since I could not see in the dark of night. My question is how much fuel we'd have to dump and what altitude it is concerned safe to dump fuel at. We couldn't have been climbing for more than a few minutes when the decision was made to turn back.
Finally, will AA be sending a bill to the passenger in question? I can only assume this emergency made the flight unprofitable.
maxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 861 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3313 times:
Quoting Airxliban (Thread starter): Question - the captain mentioned that we had landed about 5,000 lbs over weight. However, we still refueled. I assume this means that we dumped fuel, although I cannot be sure since I could not see in the dark of night. My question is how much fuel we'd have to dump and what altitude it is concerned safe to dump fuel at. We couldn't have been climbing for more than a few minutes when the decision was made to turn back.
The 767-200ERs I used to fly at US Airways had no fuel dump capability. I don't believe AAs have it either.
The takeoff and initial climb would have used enough fuel to necessitate re-fueling before departing again, since reserves and alternate fuel are down to the legal minimum these days.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3313 times:
Quoting Airxliban (Thread starter): Question - the captain mentioned that we had landed about 5,000 lbs over weight. However, we still refueled. I assume this means that we dumped fuel, although I cannot be sure since I could not see in the dark of night.
It's possible that you didn't. Airplanes are certified to land up to their MTOW, so if you have to do an overweight landing, you're not going into any unknown territory - it just means an inspection has to be done prior to the next flight (and it can be done fairly quickly). So if you have a situation where you need to get on the ground quickly (and a medical emergency would count as one of these), I probably would be inclined to just go right in and not bother with trying to dump anything - there are more important things to worry about.
Quoting Airxliban (Thread starter): Finally, will AA be sending a bill to the passenger in question? I can only assume this emergency made the flight unprofitable.
It almost certainly made the flight unprofitable, but I doubt the passenger will get a bill for suddenly needing to go to the hospital. Stuff happens, and that's the cost of doing business.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
jporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 361 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3255 times:
I don't believe that the AA 762s have the fuel dump capability. 767s can land at their MTOW, and the aircraft probably wasn't at its MTOW as the 2,475 miles between LAX and JFK isn't anywhere near the maximum range of the aircraft, so it probably didn't have a full load of fuel onboard. The plane probably refueled to make up for the fuel that was burned while you taxied, took off, and then turned around and landed. I imagine that AA only put enough fuel to make it to JFK, plus required reserves for a diversion and the required hold time (45 minutes?). I highly doubt that AA will send a bill to the passenger: it's not like he or she purposefully disrupted the flight. They will probably just swallow the lost money if there is any.
atcsundevil From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 671 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3018 times:
Quoting Airxliban (Thread starter): Finally, will AA be sending a bill to the passenger in question? I can only assume this emergency made the flight unprofitable.
No. This made the flight unprofitable, but the lawsuit and media backlash would do a little bit more damage. I wonder if they have insurance to cover this? They definitely would not bill the passenger though.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5381 posts, RR: 11 Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2807 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 2): Airplanes are certified to land up to their MTOW
Your statement here is misleading. While it's true that a plane can land at MTOW without shattering to the ground in a million pieces, it's absolutely a terrible idea to land over the Max Landing Weight.
It does happen, which is why this aircraft had to undergo an overweight landing inspection after the event.
"Doable" and "good idea" are two very different things.
In this case, the crew evidently decided that it was in the best interest of the passenger to land as soon as practical, and that's their call to make.
Thanks for clarifying. I figured as much, but I guess my airline management classes didn't touch on that in college (or it did but I was "sick" that day). I can understand how it would be important for those losses to be covered because if they aren't, safety might not end up being the number one priority.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2476 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 6): While it's true that a plane can land at MTOW without shattering to the ground in a million pieces, it's absolutely a terrible idea to land over the Max Landing Weight.
It's not that bad if you know the correct limits...however, those limits typically aren't provided to line crews. If you land above MLW you do the inspection.
Physically, the airplane is happy to land up to MTOW but you need to control the sink rate or you can do permanent damage. For schedule efficiency reasons, flight test aircraft frequently land above MLW but they have extra instrumentation and special limits to control the sink rate at touch down as a function of airplane weight.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16932 posts, RR: 57 Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2355 times:
Would they? Such diversions are relatively uncommon, so would it be cost-effective to pay an insurance premium for an event that occurs rarely and doesn't cost that much (in the grand scheme of the day-to-day operation of an airline the size of AA)?
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2312 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 8): those limits typically aren't provided to line crews.
In what country?
In the USA MGTOW, MGLW, MZFW and others were memory items until they stated placarding each airplane with its own weight limits.
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 6): the crew evidently decided that it was in the best interest of the passenger to land as soon as practica
Not an AA employee but I'll bet that the decision was pre-made per their Ops Manual based on the advice of MedLink.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2293 times:
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 11): Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 8):
those limits typically aren't provided to line crews.
In what country?
In the USA MGTOW, MGLW, MZFW and others were memory items until they stated placarding each airplane with its own weight limits.
I've never seen an AFM or placard in line service with the sink rate limits for landing above MLW without having to do an inspection. It takes a special exemption to even do that in flight test because you're outside the (future) AFM limits.
In the USA all the weights are available, the sink rate limits to trigger a hard landing inspection are available, and the AMM contains the sink rate limits for overweight landings to define the scope of the inspection required, but I've never seen data to the flight crews to define the sink rate limits that don't require an inspection if you land over MLW.
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2377 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2285 times:
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 11): Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 6):
the crew evidently decided that it was in the best interest of the passenger to land as soon as practica
Not an AA employee but I'll bet that the decision was pre-made per their Ops Manual based on the advice of MedLink.
No, the crew decided. The other inputs are taken into strong consideration, but the Captain always has ultimate authority over the airplane. If the captain decides that they must land immediately due to a medical emergency, or to follow a regulation, or the QRH says to (in the case of unidentified smoke, for example), then they land overweight.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2204 times:
Without either of us offering the current, applicable page of the AA FOM this is a very theoretical discussion. As a former captain I am well aware of the limitations on the "captain has authority over..." Fact is, unless there was some operational reason that airplane could not land at LAX or any other nearby airport, the captain would be on very shaky grounds making a decision that the passenger was better off proceeding somewhere else. The operational factors would have to CLEARLY outweigh the medical ones, which the captain was not qualified to judge.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16932 posts, RR: 57 Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2148 times:
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 14): The operational factors would have to CLEARLY outweigh the medical ones, which the captain was not qualified to judge.
I will also point out that, as a physician, if I am called to assist, I am going to be VERY strongly leaning towards getting that plane on the ground ASAP. An airplane is a horrible place to manage a medical emergency, not just due to isolation from emergency medical services, but also due to pure space constraints. Also, you do not want to find yourself doing CPR while the plane is landing. So imagine that you're a captain and a physician on board has evaluated the patient and says: "I want this guy on the ground five minutes ago." You decide to dump fuel instead and then the patient dies. The investigators aren't going to look very kindly on the captain who ignored the doctor who was actually with the patient.
The only time I've ever been called to assist on an airplane was actually a case that I was comfortable managing in flight. Oddly, on boarding, I noticed a very elderly woman who seemed to be pretty gorked out at baseline and was on O2. I wasn't shocked when they called for a doctor over Utah (JFK-SFO). I was all ready to tell the captain to land us ASAP since I'm a pediatrician, but it turned out that the patient was an 18mo boy who had developed aggressive vomiting and diarrhea. I had the F/A mix up an improvised oral rehydration solution (a salt packet and six sugar packets in one liter of water) and had the parents drip-hydrate the baby using a 5cc syringe from the onboard med kit. That temporized the situation long enough for us to get to SFO without the baby going into florid dehydration, at which point, I recommended that the family be allowed to disembark first, collect their bags, and proceed to the nearest pediatric emergency room for further treatment.
THe only other time I've been called was on the AVE high-speed train in Spain. That was for a very elderly lady who had had a sudden alteration in consciousness. Fortunately, there were about eight other doctors on the train, all Spanish (I speak fluent Spanish, but I'm not licensed in Spain), two of whom were neurologists and one of whom was a geriatrician. I excused myself and told them I'd be in car 7 if they needed me for anything.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1968 times:
Quoting Airxliban (Thread starter): Finally, will AA be sending a bill to the passenger in question? I can only assume this emergency made the flight unprofitable.
Would they? Such diversions are relatively uncommon, so would it be cost-effective to pay an insurance premium for an event that occurs rarely and doesn't cost that much (in the grand scheme of the day-to-day operation of an airline the size of AA)?
That was also my thought. How would an insurance company even establish premiums for something that's so unpredictable? I would have expected most airlines to just treat those expenses as one of their many unpredictable operating costs, the same as the costs for much more frequent diversions for other reasons (mechanical problems, weather, etc. etc.)
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15904 posts, RR: 66 Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1964 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 16): How would an insurance company even establish premiums for something that's so unpredictable?
You are probably right about companies just taking it on the nose. However my thought was that insurance companies can actually do the math based on historical occurrences.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16932 posts, RR: 57 Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1933 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 17):
You are probably right about companies just taking it on the nose. However my thought was that insurance companies can actually do the math based on historical occurrences.
An insurance company needs to make a profit. The point of insurance is to protect against LARGE expenses that would be at major variance with the day-to-day operating budget of a large airline like AA. Such sudden large expenses would include accident/hull loss or damage to multiple aircraft and/or facilities (tornado strikes an airport). On the other hand, a tank of fuel and an overweight landing inspection is not a sudden large expense with respect to the daily operating budget of a major international airline. The risk is low, so the cost of insurance would probably not be worth it.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15904 posts, RR: 66 Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1922 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18): An insurance company needs to make a profit. The point of insurance is to protect against LARGE expenses that would be at major variance with the day-to-day operating budget of a large airline like AA. Such sudden large expenses would include accident/hull loss or damage to multiple aircraft and/or facilities (tornado strikes an airport). On the other hand, a tank of fuel and an overweight landing inspection is not a sudden large expense with respect to the daily operating budget of a major international airline. The risk is low, so the cost of insurance would probably not be worth it.
Yepp. Methinks you have it right. And as a physician in the US you live in insurance-land much of the time right?
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1902 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 6): While it's true that a plane can land at MTOW without shattering to the ground in a million pieces, it's absolutely a terrible idea to land over the Max Landing Weight.
It's not a terrible idea. It's a tool that you have. You don't want to use it if you don't have to, but in some cases it's the absolute right thing to do. I can think of a number of circumstances where I'd do it without a second thought.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16932 posts, RR: 57 Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1890 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 19): And as a physician in the US you live in insurance-land much of the time right?
Yeah. For example, I am insured against malpractice and I am also insured against liability for accidents. For example, a patient is injured by a lighting grille falling out of the ceiling (happened in our office, actually, but fortunately missed the 4yo girl by a few inches... one of the only times I've actually been outright frightened at work).
I am not, however, insured against losing the occasional dose of an expensive vaccine because the nurse dropped it on the floor and the syringe broke. In the grand scheme of things, that is a rare occurrence (
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1805 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 20): It's not a terrible idea. It's a tool that you have.
You are absolutely correct. Think of it this way: An airplane has a maximum certificated RAMP gross weight but we all know it has been engineered and tested to greater loads. We just took off at some weight at or below MGTOW at which it was acceptable for the weight to be on the wheels. One consideration for MGLW is the impact with the ground at X weight. Keeping your F=MA in mind, if we can reduce the vertical velocity at touchdown to near zero we've done nothing bad to the airframe at all. The inspection is not just a formality but it is close to that if the overweight landing procedure was done correctly.
Keep in mind also that another factor in MGLW might me engine-out rejected landing performance. That is not structural at all. In fact many aircraft types can be purchased from the manufacturer with higher allowable gross weights than those you are used to. Mostly this is about performance charts and inspection schedules.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Sponsor Message: 
From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4492 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 861 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15904 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
