Takeoff alternate and 121.197

womanpilot73

Well-Known Member
So, you have people here across the industry from just about every major airline explaining to you why you shouldn’t be limiting payload for a takeoff alternate, but you are still looking for “proof”? I understand wanting to be legal and not breaking regs. This is a great place to come for help. But you don’t seem to want to accept the multiple and repetitive answers given? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have no problem accepting this, and believe me I want to. Is it really that wrong of me to ask for proof? I get it’s the industry standard and everyone does it. Believe it or not, I even do it. I was asking where it says we can do this, and everyone here just responded it’s common practice and common sense. I’ll agree with all of that too. If I ask where the proof is though, for just about any other question people could point me to the reg or guidance. That’s all I’m asking for here. I was told to look into this by my supervisor, figured I could come here and someone would point to me telling me where we can do this legally instead of just accepting that it is industry practice. I think I’d look kind of ridiculous coming back to my boss telling him, “Hey womanpilot73 and tons of other people agree with us and say we’re good but I couldn’t find regs or guidance for it.” None of our manuals prove that we can safely use a weight greater than the MSLW, and I don’t think I could say “There are MX procedures for when we land overweight so that means I can plan on it.” But I’ll withdraw my question from here. Thank you everyone for your help in this matter.
Well of course I didn’t mean it’s right just because everyone here says it is...lol. That’s silly. Seriously. I meant that you’ve been given guidance on the regs, performance, standard practice across the industry and multiple avenues of which to continue your quest for “proof”. I haven’t heard you really acknowledge the advice you’ve been given by several here but instead tell us what you have done, which hasn’t given you the answers you seek. I have seen you repeat you want proof. And that is understandable, I get it, but how about try some of the things people have suggested and see what you find? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Flagship_dxer

Legacy Airline Dispatcher
I get the feeling this isn't a company restriction, this is a you restriction. You don't need to find something saying you can do something that is industry standard and FAA approved/assumed. You need to find something that says you can't. Welcome to airplanes.

I'm being serious when i say get off the web boards and talk to your supervisors and FSDO. This is basic material you missed somehow, which is fine, but your looking at this backwards and asking us to do it too.
LOL ask a supervisor a dispatch question! Thats a good one! Most dispatch supervisors arent even dispatchers lol.
 

womanpilot73

Well-Known Member
ak_mavic, I know you don’t dispatch Boeing aircraft but here’s an article Boeing put out on overweight landings. They do mention some regulatory criteria there that might help you put some of the pieces together.

For the rest of you fellow avgeeks, it’s not a bad read. Interesting performance stuff here.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_3_07/article_03_1.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

ak_mavic

Well-Known Member
ak_mavic, I know you don’t dispatch Boeing aircraft but here’s an article Boeing put out on overweight landings. They do mention some regulatory criteria there that might help you put some of the pieces together.

For the rest of you fellow avgeeks, it’s not a bad read. Interesting performance stuff here.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_3_07/article_03_1.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks. That was a good read. I haven’t done much digging in part 25 yet but that was some interesting stuff about the sink rates.
 

Flagship_dxer

Legacy Airline Dispatcher
No but they have immediate informal access to POI and FAA laison
Maybe at some smaller regionals, LCCs and supplementals but not at larger regionals, majors and LCCs. If you have a question about legalities in dispatch, at most carriers, you would go through your dispatch training department or to a dispatcher thats designated to answer these kinds of questions. Ive worked for several airlines where dispatch supervisors even if they have dispatch knowledge and experience dont have the time to deal with these kinds of questions.

Part of this is also because POI and FAA liaisons are really busy so the only questions that get to the their level are things that are not that cut and dry or things that are not encountered very often that need clarification.

In any case, a takeoff alternate is one that you would use only in an emergency anyways. Many planes these days can land single engine CAT II/III and most airports mainline and even regionals go in and out of have CAT II/CAT III approaches so the need for a takeoff alternate is becoming less and less. Aircraft are designed to safely land above max structural landing weight in case of emergencies. The one thing that cant be busted though in the planning and even shouldnt be by a captain if he should declare an emergency are performance landing weights. If your plane cant safely stop on a runway due to length or safely execute a single engine go-around due to climb performance, then you would need to see about reducing your MTOW should, in the unlikely event, that airport be the only one you could use as a takeoff alternate.
 

4EngineETOPS

Well-Known Member
Sorry to dig up an old thread. I came across an FAA InFO from last year while working on another project. This gives an official, documented answer to the question at hand in this thread (can a flight be "planned" to land over maximum structural landing weight at a takeoff alternate?). The FAA agrees with the prevailing answer in this thread, which is that maximum structural landing weight can be disregarded for a takeoff alternate as long as 121.197 landing performance is met.

 

Mainline_or_bust

Airplanes fly on PFM, Change my mind
Sorry to dig up an old thread. I came across an FAA InFO from last year while working on another project. This gives an official, documented answer to the question at hand in this thread (can a flight be "planned" to land over maximum structural landing weight at a takeoff alternate?). The FAA agrees with the prevailing answer in this thread, which is that maximum structural landing weight can be disregarded for a takeoff alternate as long as 121.197 landing performance is met.

Maybe they were lurking on here and decided last summer that we needed an InFO on it.

:tinfoil::tinfoil::tinfoil::stir:
 

F9DXER

Well-Known Member
It was actually nice to reread this thread again as I forget about somethings.

Only thing I'd like to add is that a take-off alternate is listed for ANY reason a flight cannot return to its departure station.
It is not always the weather that causes one to be listed. Airport closes right after departure, MEL deferrals, crew capabilities, status of airport nav facilites, etc.
 

Jaketheman

Active Member
It was actually nice to reread this thread again as I forget about somethings.

Only thing I'd like to add is that a take-off alternate is listed for ANY reason a flight cannot return to its departure station.
It is not always the weather that causes one to be listed. Airport closes right after departure, MEL deferrals, crew capabilities, status of airport nav facilites, etc.
Yes, but all those other reasons that you listed do not require to have an Altn that is within an hour of flight time...
 

F9DXER

Well-Known Member
Why wouldn't they? Wouldn't the landing minimums be raised regardless of whether the ILS on the ground is OTS or the ILS receiver in the aircraft is OTS?

Not trying to start an argument, just trying to point out that even though the airport maybe fully operational and the weather is holding at CAT2 and that is the lowest landing minimum, if your aircraft or crew can't do it, a takeoff altn might be needed if not required. Something to think about.
 

jetsguy737

Well-Known Member
I remember when I 'spatched our RJ2's, adding takeoff alts would restrict the HELL out of them. On top of a bad wx day or destination alt, we would be booting pax for days. Off topic I know, but the weight restriction talk brought back painful memories
 

3Green.

Well-Known Member
I remember when I 'spatched our RJ2's, adding takeoff alts would restrict the HELL out of them. On top of a bad wx day or destination alt, we would be booting pax for days. Off topic I know, but the weight restriction talk brought back painful memories
So was your takeoff alternate further away than your destination?
 

Jaketheman

Active Member
So was your takeoff alternate further away than your destination?
He’s talking about the airworthiness directive, AD for some RJs including CRJ200s. Had issues with flaps, long story short, needed to land with “a lot” of fuel when listing a takeoff alternate
1613741570517.png
 

A1TAPE

Well-Known Member
He’s talking about the airworthiness directive, AD for some RJs including CRJ200s. Had issues with flaps, long story short, needed to land with “a lot” of fuel when listing a takeoff alternate
Here’s the event that forced that AD to be implemented. Flight was on fumes by the time it landed.
613A3C12-33FC-4B27-8B7D-5E0E24D26ABF.jpeg
 

IJD

Well-Known Member
At my shop on the 200 we have to calculate the burn to the take off alternate and multiply it by 1.8 to get the burn with a flaps fail.
 

Burrito

Catch-a-Riiiiiiide!!
So, genuinely curious: how many folks would throw in wet runway numbers with the t/o ALTN in the remarks if the weather was your reasoning, even if the weather wasn't there yet?

Nothing beyond an earnest question.
 
Top