W & B question

[Flying-Corporal]

Can you takeoff knowing that your estimated landing weight is over max? Is it legal to takeoff, burn extra in cruise and land within the legal limit?

In FARs I found where it's illegal to land, but I couldn't find where it says it's illegal to takeoff.

 

[labatt]

Sounds like you'll need to recalculate your flight plan. Lower, faster, longer etc. If you were my jumpseater standing at the gate you are getting on for sure. I had a Capt. at my own airline not take me because he was 16 lbs. over his landing weight! Plus he is a commuter. I'd still get him on my flight any day of the week.
§ 121.195 Airplanes: Turbine engine powered: Landing limitations: Destination airports.

(a) No person operating a turbine engine powered airplane may take off that airplane at such a weight that (allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight to the destination or alternate airport) the weight of the airplane on arrival would exceed the landing weight set forth in the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the destination or alternate airport and the ambient temperature anticipated at the time of landing.

 

[RedBelly]

If you are planning on buring more in cruise, then your planned landing weight would be legal. Are you talking about 121, 135, or 91? If it is 121, then amend the release (or get a new one) that shows a higher fuel burn with a legal landing weight.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Does the airplane burn an additional 200lb of fuel solely as the result of taking the jumpseater? Probably not unless the jumpseater weighed about 1500lbs !

 

[Erlanger]

Can you takeoff knowing that your estimated landing weight is over max? Is it legal to takeoff, burn extra in cruise and land within the legal limit?

In FARs I found where it's illegal to land, but I couldn't find where it says it's illegal to takeoff.

I know exactly what you're talking about and the simple answer is you can't do it. You need to get dispatch to change the numbers on the release. They could file you for a lower altitude to burn fuel but what's on that release is what you have to go by. So knowingly taking off as you described above even though your max takeoff weight is based on landing weight and not climb, field performance or other factors at the origination point would still get you in trouble with the Feds.

 

[Minimaniac]

The most correct answer in my eyes is that you cannot takeoff at a weight higher than the weight of max landing weight plus planned fuel burn.

My work around is to get off the gate with your jumpseater, and go burn off the extra 200 lbs in a run up area. With both engines and the APU, you can burn that amount off less than 10 minutes without having to run the engines up very high. Just keep max ramp weight kosher, and take the runway when you have burned down to max land plus planned burn.

 

[CaptainKiwi]

How about this twist... Dispatch files you around weather and you are fueled with a landing weight limit. You get your clearance and ATC clears you direct and the flighttime is 14 minutes shorter. The weather has cleared. Can you takeoff using the orignal release filling the airplane with max payload using the fuel burn from the original release? Then takeoff ontime and burn off the excess fuel by flying lower, faster, using spoilers, gear early, ect to land under max landing weight and maintain the sched? I did this once with a comair jumpseater and I was able to keep him on. I discussed this before we took off and none of the 3 of us could see anything illegal with it. A comair pilot out there owes me a cold one.

 

[CaptainKiwi]

Or... You have planned with 45 minutes of taxi fuel because you are in LGA but today there isn't a line for takeoff and you takeoff in 10 minutes which you will be taking off overweight based on your landing weight limit. Are you legal or must you sit there and wait until you are at your max takeoff wt due to landing wt limit or just burn it off in the air. I know I would just takeoff and burn it off in the air. Sometimes it comes down to using good judgement. Now if you take off with excess payload and then are required to burn excess fuel along the way that dips into reserve and or alternate fuel in order to land below landing wt limit then that is a poor decision and what I think the Feds wouldn't like.

 

[igneousy2]

Captain Kiwi...

There are no twists in either of your hypotheticals...in either case you cannot take-off.

The twist in the first scenario would be if you got the reroute AFTER take-off...then all planning goes in the trash can and you just have to make sure you land below max landing weight.

There is no way to make your 2nd scenario kosher...if you are that close on your landing weight then you must burn the fuel.

There is no "common-sense authority" when it comes to regulations and you can't claim emergency authority if the action you are taking is not necessary for a safe flight.

My question to you is...why are you in such a rush?

 

[GuppyWN]

Captain Kiwi...

There are no twists in either of your hypotheticals...in either case you cannot take-off.

The twist in the first scenario would be if you got the reroute AFTER take-off...then all planning goes in the trash can and you just have to make sure you land below max landing weight.

There is no way to make your 2nd scenario kosher...if you are that close on your landing weight then you must burn the fuel.

There is no "common-sense authority" when it comes to regulations and you can't claim emergency authority if the action you are taking is not necessary for a safe flight.

My question to you is...why are you in such a rush?

Wrong.

So you're telling me that if you are next in line at LGA and you're 100 pounds under planned taxi fuel that you will not accept a takeoff clearance?

One delay vector or altitude holddown for traffic cures the problem.

Don't land overweight and don't PUSH without the numbers jiving. Everything in the middle is one GIGANTIC variable.

Gup

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Wrong.

So you're telling me that if you are next in line at LGA and you're 100 pounds under planned taxi fuel that you will not accept a takeoff clearance?

One delay vector or altitude holddown for traffic cures the problem.

Don't land overweight and don't PUSH without the numbers jiving. Everything in the middle is one GIGANTIC variable.

Gup

Gup,

This isn't quite correct at all carriers. At 9E and other "legalistic carriers" you would be wrong, however common sense and appropriate judgement rules at other carriers like DL and it sounds like WN.

Different ways to skin at cat....

 

[Dumb Pilot]

Gup,

This isn't quite correct at all carriers. At 9E and other "legalistic carriers" you would be wrong, however common sense and appropriate judgement rules at other carriers like DL and it sounds like WN.

Different ways to skin at cat....

Excuse me? PCL is a legalistic carrier? In my six years there (three as a check airman) I must have missed that memo. I'm scheduled to burn 1,000 pounds on the ground but due to slow ground traffic or a simple runway change I end up burning 600, are you seriously saying that to be legal I have to hold an extra 15 minutes on the ground when I have a several hours flight ahead of me? I agree with Gup on that one, YOU are the one that controls the flight after you block out because you did blocked out legally, you are required to monitor your fuel burn during the flight thus you adjust it so as landing at or bellow your MLW. The release is a PLAN.
What about if you did burn the required taxi fuel but you are still heavy because the projected winds where not what was planned? guys please!, the regulations due account for you to use that big melon sitting over your shoulders

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

DumbPilot - You can cut in line and takeoff from a feeder, if your melon tells you to. Is it legal? No. Could you? Sure.

The question is: Can you legally take off? No. 121.195 is clear.

Would you get caught? Probably not.

Have people been caught? Absolutely.

It seems to me that the disposition of your POI is the biggest variable.

 

[TWA Dude]

These scenarios play out every day all over. If the numbers are legal when you push from that point on whether you're on the ground or in the air all you have to do is ensure you burn off enough to land. The distinction is the planning versus the actual, kind of like flight time limits.

 

[PreContact]

Just configure a little bit earlier.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

These scenarios play out every day all over. If the numbers are legal when you push from that point on whether you're on the ground or in the air all you have to do is ensure you burn off enough to land. The distinction is the planning versus the actual, kind of like flight time limits.

So by that logic you can take off above MGTOW or below MIN Fuel. It was good at the gate, so giddyup.

Except - the sneaky FAA actually differentiates between dispatch and physical take off:


Sec. 121.639 - Fuel supply: All domestic operations.
No person may dispatch or take off an airplane unless it has enough fuel --
(a) To fly to the airport to which it is dispatched;
(b) Thereafter, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport (where required) for the airport to which dispatched; and
(c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption. . .

In our question when 121.195 says:

Sec. 121.195 - Airplanes: Turbine engine powered: Landing limitations: Destination airports.
(a) No person operating a turbine engine powered airplane may take off that airplane . . .


. . . they mean take off, not dispatch.

 

[CaptainKiwi]

So is this what we should be doing???

Your cleared for takeoff but you haven't used all your taxi fuel to allow for max takeoff weight due to landing limit. You tell the tower you need to wait 5 minutes. Tower tells you to hold short while they land traffic. Meanwhile 7 minutes has passed and now you are below minimum fuel. So you now have to go back to the gate to get more fuel and start over. You could be at the airport all day going back and forth until you hit your takeoff weight exactly as at max takeoff weight to land but minimum fuel to fly. Sounds really silly. I'd love to hear those PA's. "Sorry folks, we have too much fuel to takeoff.". Seven minutes later. "Sorry folks we need to go back to the gate to get more fuel". If I had a choice in front of the FAA I'd prefer to have more fuel than less. You can always burn fuel. Planned vs. Actual.

 

[PreContact]

I agree with Kiwi...

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

I'm not saying Kiwi's example would be fun, but if you can't go to an airport because of weight issues, you can't go. Call dispatch and work out a new plan. Most times you can fix it without a return. What the regs say is you can't just blast off and fix it in the air.

I've had to turn around for stupider reasons than that (missing weather on a clear day, MU reading 1 number too low, &c.).

Common sense and legal are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[tzskipper]

So is this what we should be doing???

Your cleared for takeoff but you haven't used all your taxi fuel to allow for max takeoff weight due to landing limit. You tell the tower you need to wait 5 minutes. Tower tells you to hold short while they land traffic. Meanwhile 7 minutes has passed and now you are below minimum fuel. So you now have to go back to the gate to get more fuel and start over. You could be at the airport all day going back and forth until you hit your takeoff weight exactly as at max takeoff weight to land but minimum fuel to fly. Sounds really silly. I'd love to hear those PA's. "Sorry folks, we have too much fuel to takeoff.". Seven minutes later. "Sorry folks we need to go back to the gate to get more fuel". If I had a choice in front of the FAA I'd prefer to have more fuel than less. You can always burn fuel. Planned vs. Actual.

Kiwi,

There are basically two concerns regarding fuel at the end of the runway:

The first is that you cannot begin your take-off roll without at least the minimum (min fuel) required in the dispatch release (this is the minimum fuel you can depart with).

The second concern is that you cannot begin your take-off roll if you (after subtracting out the calculated fuel burn of the flight plan) will land overweight (this is the maximum fuel you can depart with).

Taxi fuel that is put in by dispatch is just a wag based on historical data. The two items above keep you in compliance with the FARs.

S

 

[CaptainKiwi]

Kiwi,

There are basically two concerns regarding fuel at the end of the runway:

The first is that you cannot begin your take-off roll without at least the minimum (min fuel) required in the dispatch release (this is the minimum fuel you can depart with).

The second concern is that you cannot begin your take-off roll if you (after subtracting out the calculated fuel burn of the flight plan) will land overweight (this is the maximum fuel you can depart with).

Taxi fuel that is put in by dispatch is just a wag based on historical data. The two items above keep you in compliance with the FARs.

S

Am I missing something? That is my point but others are saying taxi fuel is not a wag. It is still on the airplane. Others above are saying you must burn off the fuel before you takeoff.

Btw, this doesn't come up much on my current airplane but when I was on the crj-200, it came up alot. I did talk to a fed about it on one of my jumpseats. Albeit was just one fed's oppinion, he said his main concerns were that you had enough fuel and that no structural limits were exceeded.

 

[CaptainKiwi]

Let me flip a coin... How much taxi fuel can dispatch add?? I had one put on 4 times the standard taxi fuel. I quickly called cause it flagged me to find out what was going on?? A VIP arrival or weather, ect. Her response was we were departing a big airport. I'd rather just call it extra fuel rather than taxi fuel to keep you from getting in these situations but it does restrict payload. So back to my question... How much taxi fuel can a dispatcher add without justification. Btw, that day she put on 4 times the normal taxi fuel we only taxied for 10 minutes to takeoff and we didn't have enough payload to get into this corner. So it wasn't an issue that day but could easily have pushed into it if the airplane was full.

 

[tzskipper]

Am I missing something? That is my point but others are saying taxi fuel is not a wag. It is still on the airplane. Others above are saying you must burn off the fuel before you takeoff.

Btw, this doesn't come up much on my current airplane but when I was on the crj-200, it came up alot. I did talk to a fed about it on one of my jumpseats. Albeit was just one fed's oppinion, he said his main concerns were that you had enough fuel and that no structural limits were exceeded.

Hi Kiwi,

The only amount of taxi fuel that is required to be "burned off" during taxi, is enough so that the amount of total fuel that you have on board when you take-off, less the en-route planned burn allows you to remain under max landing weight (actual t/o weight less flight plan burn) at your destination (while still departing with at least "min fuel" as required by your release - this is the departure to destination to alternate + 45 minutes...).

For example; if your taxi fuel on the release is 500 lbs. and you only burn 300 lbs., you can take-off with the additional 200 lbs. of fuel on-board, so long as the additional 200 lbs. will not put you in a position of taking off, knowing that you will be overweight for landing at your destination (ZFW + fuel remaining at take-off - en-route burn = estimated landing weight).

I hope this helps.

S

 

[CaptainKiwi]

Skipper.

Max landing wt is 47000lbs
enroute fuel is 3000lbs
taxi fuel is 1000lbs

47000 + 3000 + 1000 = 51000
per the dispatch release you are legal to dispatch but the question is can you takeoff if you only burn 200lbs and now weigh 50800?

The fuel onboard is minfuel + the 1000lb taxi fuel. Min fuel including enroute + reserve + alternate. So in this example, dispatched legally the only time to legally takeoff is the exact moment when taxi fuel is completly used up to be under the max takeoff weight and just enough fuel to legally complete the flight. It just seems silly. I'd rather takeoff. What would be worse is if you needed that fuel later and wished you had it but now you don't because you burnt off your taxi fuel.

 

[tzskipper]

Skipper.

Max landing wt is 47000lbs
enroute fuel is 3000lbs
taxi fuel is 1000lbs

47000 + 3000 + 1000 = 51000
per the dispatch release you are legal to dispatch but the question is can you takeoff if you only burn 200lbs and now weigh 50800?

The fuel onboard is minfuel + the 1000lb taxi fuel. Min fuel including enroute + reserve + alternate. So in this example, dispatched legally the only time to legally takeoff is the exact moment when taxi fuel is completly used up to be under the max takeoff weight and just enough fuel to legally complete the flight. It just seems silly. I'd rather takeoff. What would be worse is if you needed that fuel later and wished you had it but now you don't because you burnt off your taxi fuel.

You are right in this scenario. To be legal (by definition), when you push the throttles up for take-off, you have to have exactly 3000 lbs. of fuel on-board. One pound less and you do not meet the min fuel requirement, one pound more and you take-off knowing that (by definition) you will land overweight.

It is "silly", and (imo) this would be a good time to talk to the dispatcher about getting a closer alternate, or if an alternate is not needed, removing it completely, so you have a little extra fuel.

S

 

[asayankee]

Why do you people continue the over-complicate the hell out of this crap??? This job is not that hard. Stop over thinking it. Dont' take off overwright, make sure you can get where you're going and land.

 

[GuppyWN]

So much for experience and judgement! After reading this thread I agree that you cannot takeoff if the exact profile numbers will put you overweight at landing. I still feel like I should be able to level off 2k lower or drop the gear early but I agree the feds don't like that answer.

Gup

 

[CaptainKiwi]

Let's try this one...

Can you takeoff using a runway intersection with data you don't have? You are taking off runway 17. You have data for RW 17 full length and RW 17 at intersection K3. Can you takeoff using intersection K2 allowing more runway to takeoff than the K3 but use the K3 runway data? Common sense says sure, you have more runway but really you are taking off without out proper takeoff data. I think you can takeoff but I had an f/o challenge me because we didn't have data for K2 when we were taking off from there. I told him when we go past our intersection K3 at 80 knots that he can start the takeoff data then. Again good judgement has to come in at some point...

 

[tzskipper]

Let's try this one...

Can you takeoff using a runway intersection with data you don't have? You are taking off runway 17. You have data for RW 17 full length and RW 17 at intersection K3. Can you takeoff using intersection K2 allowing more runway to takeoff than the K3 but use the K3 runway data? Common sense says sure, you have more runway but really you are taking off without out proper takeoff data. I think you can takeoff but I had an f/o challenge me because we didn't have data for K2 when we were taking off from there. I told him when we go past our intersection K3 at 80 knots that he can start the takeoff data then. Again good judgement has to come in at some point...

You can do whatever you want, until something goes wrong.

No data, no departure...

Common sense does not apply to most regulations.

S

 

[TWA Dude]

So by that logic you can take off above MGTOW or below MIN Fuel.

Not at all. I just think that common sense prevails rather than being caught in FAR minutia. This is how I see it working in the real world.