3
$\begingroup$

I'm thinking in terms of the Concorde accident in 2000 having just read part of the report which states that they were in effect several tonnes heavier than they should of been factoring in the tailwind and tyre speed restriction imposed for that reason. The crew took 3 tonnes of taxi fuel of which they only burned 800kg and that put them at least a tonne above MTOW not taking the tailwind into consideration which the report states would have been negligible. So I was wondering, is there any margin for takeoffs with weights marginally higher than MTOW? (obviously in this case they were ridiculously heavy amongst a whole host of other poor decisions taken by the crew)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, although that specific exemption might not be what you're thinking about $\endgroup$ – Pondlife Jul 25 '17 at 23:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Military necessity. Sometimes called emergency war weight we could, with explicit permission, take off above max gross weight up to this EWW. And this: departing for Grenada, one pilot said 'we didn't know exactly what our weight was, but it was above EWW.` $\endgroup$ – radarbob Jul 25 '17 at 23:44
10
$\begingroup$

The crew took 3 tonnes of taxi fuel of which they only burned 800kg and that put them at least a tonne above MTOW not taking the tailwind into consideration which the report states would have been negligible.

I can't speak to operations in today's environment, but at the two 747 carriers I worked for in the late 1980s and the 1990s, it was quite common to load more taxi fuel that you knew you would actually burn prior to takeoff. This was especially true for the 747-100, which had only a four bay center tank as opposed to the -200 which had a five bay center tank. Justification was easy. For example, if you were taxiing out at JFK to a trip to Tel Aviv, you well might burn 4000 lbs if you got caught in a line up. However, with any luck you'd get to the runway without delay, and you'd only burn 2000 (maybe even a little less), and you'd have the extra fuel for later. You wouldn't have the whole 2000 extra, because it would take about 20% of that to carry it.

Why was the extra fuel desirable? Well, in general as they say, the only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire. Seriously, though, an extra 1500 to 2000 pounds could make the different between having to divert to Athens for fuel or going on to Tel Aviv.

So I was wondering, is there any margin for takeoffs with weights marginally higher than MTOW?

There is a practical margin but it's a judgement call as to how much it really is. If on the 747 all four engines stay running, the airplane will march right out, albeit with reduced performance, even if seriously overweight, but you've compromised the airplane's ability to stay in the air if an engine fails, especially if the failure is catastrophic.

Sometimes you're overloaded but don't know it. Either accidentally or on purpose the cargo weight you're carrying is misreported. The worst case that I experienced was taking a full cruise line crew and equipment from Miami to Trieste, where they would board a brand new cruise liner and put it in service.

We were at max gross and had enough fuel for that weight to reach Trieste. Once airborne at at cruise, we realized we were burning more fuel that we should. Using our mach number, altitude, and fuel flow we worked backward to find our weight and discovered we were somewhere between 30 and 35 thousand lbs heavier than we should have been. Our dispatch confirmed our calculations when we contacted them, and we made a fuel stop in Paris.

If you're flying freight, and pallets of uncovered dry goods are left out in the rain, they weight a lot more than when they were dry. That happened at Madras, India (now called Chennai) and that put us well over gross.

In a perfect world, neither experience should have happened. Welcome to the real world, at least as it existed in the 1990s.,

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ and still does, given that "standard weights" are used to calculate the combined weight of passengers and luggage. Which has caused crashes in the past of small commuter planes that were according to their loadsheets just under MTOW but in reality were seriously overloaded because the FAA/company mandates standard weights per piece of luggage or passenger were too low (decades old, not compensated for increased average weight of the population). $\endgroup$ – jwenting Jul 26 '17 at 9:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question was is it ever "permissible" to takeoff heavier than MTOW (which is an operating limit), not whether it sometimes occurs. Here is the regulation regarding exceeding operating limitations: "§91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry. $\endgroup$ – 757toga Jul 26 '17 at 13:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually, @757toga, "permissible" is in the question title. The question in the text is "is there margin for over MTOW take offs". So this answers the text, not the title. $\endgroup$ – FreeMan Jul 26 '17 at 20:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @FreeMan, I don't disagree with what you said. But my point is my point. I'm just passing information and not tying to enter a reading contest. $\endgroup$ – 757toga Jul 26 '17 at 22:50
2
$\begingroup$

Is it ever permissible to takeoff on an aircraft heavier than its MTOW?

Exceeding the maximum certificated weight for aircraft is extremely limited by FAR Part 91. The regulation shown below refers to operations within the state of Alaska and applies to airplanes certificated under a very old rule and limits this authorization to aircraft operating under FARs 121 and 135 as well as certain U.S. Department of Interior airplanes:

Here is the regulation:

§91.323 Increased maximum certificated weights for certain airplanes operated in Alaska.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the Administrator will approve, as provided in this section, an increase in the maximum certificated weight of an airplane type certificated under Aeronautics Bulletin No. 7-A of the U.S. Department of Commerce dated January 1, 1931, as amended, or under the normal category of part 4a of the former Civil Air Regulations (14 CFR part 4a, 1964 ed.) if that airplane is operated in the State of Alaska by—

(1) A certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter; or

(2) The U.S. Department of Interior in conducting its game and fish law enforcement activities or its management, fire detection, and fire suppression activities concerning public lands.

(b) The maximum certificated weight approved under this section may not exceed—

(1) 12,500 pounds;

(2) 115 percent of the maximum weight listed in the FAA aircraft specifications;

(3) The weight at which the airplane meets the positive maneuvering load factor requirement for the normal category specified in §23.337 of this chapter; or

(4) The weight at which the airplane meets the climb performance requirements under which it was type certificated.

(c) In determining the maximum certificated weight, the Administrator considers the structural soundness of the airplane and the terrain to be traversed.

(d) The maximum certificated weight determined under this section is added to the airplane's operation limitations and is identified as the maximum weight authorized for operations within the State of Alaska.

[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34308, Aug. 18, 1989; Amdt. 91-211, 54 FR 41211, Oct. 5, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-253, 62 FR 13253, Mar. 19, 1997]

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What does the regulation mean? Would action such as described in the question be allowed under this regulation? $\endgroup$ – Koyovis Jul 26 '17 at 4:24
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Koyovis The regulation applies only to aircraft whose max certificated weight did not exceed 12,500 lbs and only in the U.S. state of Alaska. The theoretical justification was that Alaska is generally "cold" and a 15% overload would not cause a problem. The practical need for the regulation was political (my opinion) in that Alaska state government, Alaska businesses, and most Alaska pilots were regularly operating overweight and any attempt by the FAA to violate that many people was simply not politically tenable. Better to allow a 15% overload as a guide to a reasonably safe overload. $\endgroup$ – Terry Jul 26 '17 at 5:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question was is it ever "permissible" to takeoff heavier than MTOW (which is an operating limit), not whether it sometimes occurs. Here is the regulation regarding exceeding operating limitations: "§91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry. $\endgroup$ – 757toga Jul 26 '17 at 14:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Alaska isn't always as "cold" as people think. It's been in the 80s in Fairbanks this summer. (But that's a bit OT...) $\endgroup$ – FreeMan Jul 26 '17 at 20:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.