Takeoff alternate and 121.197

Altimeter

Well-Known Member
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
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.
 

who'swho

Don't hesitate. Penetrate!
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.
I've never dispatched an Airbus before but the 320 is qualified to shoot cat III with 1 engine?
 
F

Flying Saluki

Guest
You're talking about two different things here: planning vs. execution. 121.557 deals with the execution of a flight. It assumes that the airplane is airborne, and that an emergency has been declared. If both those conditions have been satisfied, the PIC is free to invoke 121.557 to his heart's content.

However, during the planning phase of the flight the PIC and Dispatcher, under FAR 121.533, are jointly responsible for pre-flight planning and dispatch release of a flight in compliance with FAR Part 121 and Ops Specs. FAR 121.197 requires that the aircraft be able to stop within 60/70% of the runway length of ANY alternate airport listed on the dispatch release (the only mention of takeoff alternate is in regards to aircraft fuel dumping capability). The reg. specifically mentions the dispatch release. Therefore it follows that this reg. applies to the planning stage, which means you must comply with it during the planning process.

It seems pretty cut and dried to me. You can't plan a flight predicated on violation of the FARs.
 

jynxyjoe

The Kickin' Chicken!
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?
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).

Your immediate supervisor or his/her would clear this up for you immediately. Unless stated in your book otherwise, the PMLW is predicated on Destination, not most restrictive alternate. And the software would do it for you otherwise. If your book is more restrictive do that.
 

McCrosky

Well-Known Member
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?
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?
 

jynxyjoe

The Kickin' Chicken!
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).
 

McCrosky

Well-Known Member
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).
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.
 

jynxyjoe

The Kickin' Chicken!
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.
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 FARs
 

bbmikej

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

jynxyjoe

The Kickin' Chicken!
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.
Sure but most companies wouldn't because that's crazy.

(I now am speaking for whole industry not because I'm an expert, just closing my eyes and calling my shot on Larry Bird. Im Jordan now too. And i have 6 of them trophies for the NBA)

(NM, Jordan closing eyes on Barkley because Charles is an ass)

(Ok Jordan too kinda)
 

Mainline_or_bust

Airplanes fly on PFM, Change my mind
Literally every airplane is capable of landing at maximum takeoff weight. It will require an inspection for overweight landing but isn't written off for good. The problem is the ft/min descent rate would have to be minimal to insure the landing gear isn't compromised. Therefore, manufacturers limit the landing weight to accommodate marginally more than standard 3.0 GS and flare.

A plane is able to circle back and land immediately if an engine fails. CRJ, 175, 320, 747 it doesn't matter. If a gear couldn't handle more than maximum landing weight then why would you ever be able to takeoff with more?

@womanpilot73 and @McCrosky Are completely right. Out of the 8900.1 CH 3:

C. List of Alternate Airports. C070 specifies that the operator must maintain a list of alternate airports that can be used. This list of alternates may be integrated into the list provided by the operator, if desired. The principal operations inspector (POI) should occasionally inspect the list of alternates to determine airport and airplane compatibility.

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.
 

ak_mavic

Well-Known Member
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. I completely agree in knowing realistically that it can, I just don’t have proof. I also don’t have access to fancy computer programs that will calculate above what the manufacturer lists. All what I’m asking is for proof saying that I can deviate from 121.197, not logic because I agree that The plane would be able to land above max structural
 

belgiumania

Well-Known Member
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.
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.

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.
100% this.
 
Top