Overweight...
- Thread starter Nark
- Start date
Screaming_Emu
Joe Conventional
Would your dispatchers be willing/able to plan you at a lower altitude?
Flyinthrew
Well-Known Member
Are you allowed to leave the ground with that number, knowing you can work it off?
Not an airline guy, but is pop the boards and keep the power up in the descent a viable option? Burn rate in different configurations is a pretty important piece of information.
Not an airline guy, but is pop the boards and keep the power up in the descent a viable option? Burn rate in different configurations is a pretty important piece of information.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Go sit and burn 226 lbs before you takeoff...
T/O w/FSII
Well-Known Member
Kick the netjets captain in the back off the plane.
milleR
Well-Known Member
That works in 91 and possibly in 135 depending on the ops. For 121 you have to make the numbers work before you push. Hence getting dispatch to work with you on the enroute burn or pulling bags inside.
Luigi
Well-Known Member
See this pisses me off..I was a dispatcher on a flight not to long ago with my buddy trying to jumpseat on. I had included some hold fuel in an over abundance of caution due to VCTS at the destination. I had left a 300lb wt buffer, but sure enough they needed 300lbs of ballast to get the jumpseater on and were overwt. I asked over ACARs multiple times for the captain to give me a call. But instead he kicked the jumpseater off and left. Honestly whether it was a friend or a random offline jumpseater I'd have liked to work with the captain to increase our enrte fuel burn and reduced our MINTO to make the numbers work.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
So you can't push at your place without planning to go sit and burn fuel? We do it from time to time here, just simply by increasing the taxi burn on the ACARS numbers.
We don't even have a requirement to push with numbers.
flyinggreasemnky
Well-Known Member
That's not true for the 3 121s I've worked at. This is fairly common and the ACARS Aerodata will just give you a burn down number before departure. I've sat and burned for half an hour to make sure I can get all pax and a js on. I've also had dispatch plan us 6,000' lower to make sure we are good. There are several options unless you are hitting zero fuel weight. On a plane that is constantly weight restricted, you get have to make the numbers work on a regular basis just to get all the pax on. I've only ever had to leave a js behind once and it was because of zfw.
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Surely on a 30+ ton jet (and that's just RJ class) you can find 300 lbs of fudge factor.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
Depends on the fudge factor involved with the carpet dance at the Chief Pilots office.
bike21
9-5 Ruins Lives
OO?
Sucks the captain didn't try to work with you, that said who knows what else was going on for the flight but my ethos was certainly to leave no jumpseater behind. I nearly batted a 1000 for getting jumpseaters on during my tenure on the RJ. Once we went to all ACARS for performance years back the leeway went away a bit as the numbers would return at times a ridiculous .1% out of CG. And the loop would begin...you would solve the CG issue only be to overweight, rinse & repeat.
Usually we could make it work but I remember two times that we simply couldn't (even talking with dispatcher). At that point it's much too late to suddenly have a 'need' to do a manual manifest and we had to leave those folks behind. Hated to do it but no choice. Except for one time a JS'er who was watching us work our butts off to get her on (even took a delay) and when we finally said sorry it can't happen she stated, "well thanks for nothing!" and stormed off. Good riddance. That was the one time I was glad it didn't work out. Good grief.
Baronman
Well-Known Member
I don't think the CP is your main concern.
Something happens on the way out....Blow a tire. Lose Nosewheel steering...whatever....You open the flight up to examination and risk the FAA looking into it.
Personally I make sure the #'s are legal before we push. Be it increased taxi burn (which we'll burn) or shifting of cargo. Could also call dispatch for a revised burn at a lower altitude. Even on a short RJ flight you could probably increase by 300lbs easily.
There's just too big a data trail to try to fudge it. Imagine something happened, you'd regret that decision the rest of your career.
Reminds me of the cargo days in the 1990s, where the numbers on the manifest worked out...sometimes barely, but there was no way in hell the Chieftain was under its MTOW, just with how bogged down it was taxiing and how it "felt"; though I couldn't formally prove it, as the weight numbers on the cargo bins were there to see. But, it still flew.........alas with some extra takeoff run.
Flagship_dxer
Penske Material
My philosophy with weight restrictions is if the weather enroute and at the destination is good or within acceptable limits than I try to plan the fuel with a several thousand pound buffer on the weights but if things change and we do end up going over than I try to work out an increased enroute burn for max landing weight or added taxi burn or performance/structural MTOW. However, when the weather looks bad and the risk for a diversion fairly high than I am generally not willing to work out the weight and balance. There are too many times in those cases where you really end up needing the fuel. I risk my license when 12 flights divert on me at one time and I cant communicate with all of them at the same time. I risk my license if you declare a fuel emergency. Beyond that, you often end up screwing over a plane load of passengers and even sometimes the very people you were trying to get on that flight. You dont help the commuter out if you divert and end up needing to overnight in the diversion station. The customer service question when the weather is bad is do we try to take everyone and risk pissing everyone off if the light fuel plan fails or do you bump so the majority of passengers have a better chance or getting to their destination.
One practice I am leery of that I see happening a lot lately is pilots using headwinds to get more weight off the runway when it involves using all or most of the reported wind whether it be sustained and/or gusts. It does increase the performance MTOW but if for some reason you lost that wind and were to lose an engine or need to abort takeoff, it could mean you end up going off the other end of the runway depending on braking performance and how overweight you had become. Yes the risk of losing an engine at or before V1 is not that high and its rare that winds suddenly calm but dont most accidents begin and end with a sequence of events that rarely happen and all need to happen for that accident to have occurred?
One practice I am leery of that I see happening a lot lately is pilots using headwinds to get more weight off the runway when it involves using all or most of the reported wind whether it be sustained and/or gusts. It does increase the performance MTOW but if for some reason you lost that wind and were to lose an engine or need to abort takeoff, it could mean you end up going off the other end of the runway depending on braking performance and how overweight you had become. Yes the risk of losing an engine at or before V1 is not that high and its rare that winds suddenly calm but dont most accidents begin and end with a sequence of events that rarely happen and all need to happen for that accident to have occurred?
Similar threads
