Mike Wise
#NewSchool
Thanks for adding nothing to the discussion except for some dumb meme.
Thanks for adding nothing to the discussion except for some dumb meme.
I’m not asking about minimums, I’m asking about MLW. I understand when an emergency actually arises a captain can deviate from regulations, but 121.197 says nothing about planning for an emergency, nor does 121.617. Those regs only refer to listing an alternate.
I know I’m going to get that plane on the ground and not care about landing weight if it loses an engine, but what am I legally permitted to plan for? An emergency every time I list a takeoff alternate?
You really think everyone is going around violating regs just so they can take off max? Cmon Mr. connections
I've never dispatched an Airbus before but the 320 is qualified to shoot cat III with 1 engine?Our 320 Family does not require a Take Off Alternate if TOW is less than MLW, up to CAT III Single. This is because the a/c is designed to shoot a CAT III Single approach up to MLW. So for our Airbuses you only need a Take Off Alternate if you are taking off above MLW, up to where CAT III is available and legal.
I would say if you are kicking pax or cargo to accommodate landing weight for an engine loss emergency during the climb, you are trying to hard. Also, it says we can't PLAN to land over MLW. I think the FAA would frown upon planning to lose an engine in climb.
As long as it is under MLW at Take off.I've never dispatched an Airbus before but the 320 is qualified to shoot cat III with 1 engine?
Ex dispatcher 129 (all international ops except for one or two chicago / anchorage flights) now pilot, smallest plane being a 310 largest being 747. Not suppose to reduce load to land under mlw for to alt. Mlw predicated on your definition plus pmlw should be tied to destination (or perhaps percautionary destination if planning for 50m redispatch).So I’ve been chatting with some pilots and they seem to disagree with the regs. I told them I would have to reduce their MTOW to comply with 197 for their MLW at any listed alternate, including takeoff alternate. They claim it doesn’t apply because a T/O Alt is only ever going to be used during emergencies and therefore they can deviate from regulations. Anyone want to take their side, or does anyone have additional proof backing my side?
So I’ve been chatting with some pilots and they seem to disagree with the regs. I told them I would have to reduce their MTOW to comply with 197 for their MLW at any listed alternate, including takeoff alternate. They claim it doesn’t apply because a T/O Alt is only ever going to be used during emergencies and therefore they can deviate from regulations. Anyone want to take their side, or does anyone have additional proof backing my side?
Putting my bet down for PLDW, which would be based off most restrictive of what you listed... and he's somehow forcing it in the system (which might be his company's procedure I'll allow).Just out of curiosity cause I’m not clear on which weight limit you’re using, are you limiting the t/o weight based on the T/O Alternate runway performance numbers or a manufacturer limit for Max Landing weight?
Putting my bet down for PLDW, which would be based off most restrictive of what you listed... and he's somehow forcing it in the system (which might be his company's procedure I'll allow).
It's good to go. IDK OP company but he was either taught something right or wrong or made something up. You go to max for destination, but company procedures may be more restrictive than FARsThat’s kinda what I’m confused about. I’ll use an example with generic numbers:
Let’s say you’re leaving KJFK on a 757 at max structural take off at 250,000lbs, you need to add a take off alternate of KBDL. Now, I have a max structural landing weight of say 210,000lbs according to Boeing. But I have runway perf data that says I can land at 250,000lbs and stop the airplane in 60% of the length KBDL’s runway. It’s about a 4,000lb burn from KJFK to KBDL. The 757 cannot dump fuel.
Soooo are we trying to say the airplane is this example needs to have the Take Off weight reduced to the 214,000lbs or that it’s good to go as is with a Take off weight of 250,000lbs? Just trying to have a clear understanding of the original question.
My opinion, in this situation you’re good to go at 250,000lbs because you can stop the plane in under 60% off the runway at the take off alternate (KBDL in this example) and meet the 121.197.
That’s kinda what I’m confused about. I’ll use an example with generic numbers:
Let’s say you’re leaving KJFK on a 757 at max structural take off at 250,000lbs, you need to add a take off alternate of KBDL. Now, I have a max structural landing weight of say 210,000lbs according to Boeing. But I have runway perf data that says I can land at 250,000lbs and stop the airplane in 60% of the length KBDL’s runway. It’s about a 4,000lb burn from KJFK to KBDL. The 757 cannot dump fuel.
Soooo are we trying to say the airplane is this example needs to have the Take Off weight reduced to the 214,000lbs or that it’s good to go as is with a Take off weight of 250,000lbs? Just trying to have a clear understanding of the original question.
My opinion, in this situation you’re good to go at 250,000lbs because you can stop the plane in under 60% off the runway at the take off alternate (KBDL in this example) and meet the 121.197.
Sure but most companies wouldn't because that's crazy.I believe that originally we were asking about planning to land at max structural according to Boeing. So plan to land at KBDL at 210,000 making takeoff in KJFK limited to 214,000.
I believe that originally we were asking about planning to land at max structural according to Boeing. So plan to land at KBDL at 210,000 making takeoff in KJFK limited to 214,000.
I completely agree and said pretty much the same thing on the previous page. I was just trying to clarify what the original question was.That’s not a limit. By that logic, no airplane should ever depart the origin airport over its manufacturers listed max structural landing weight in case they need to come back.
The problem with all this, is the manufacturer of the airframe doesn’t give performance data for landing above max structural, only up to its MLW. Therefore I can’t prove it can land above it’s structrual.
Meaning if you follow my complete view of it, if it's in your C070 and you're able to satisfy 121.197 by landing within 60% then your good to go even if the 757 was landing at 400,000 Lbs. That's also why when you run Aerodata for many flights it shows you a field length limit that's above your structural takeoff and landing weights.
I suspect mavic is dispatching DeHavilland Canada products.Boeing absolutely provides the data to calculate stopping distance above Max Structural LDW. Your performance handbooks should have that data if your electronic tools do not.
100% this.