Overweight Landing?

Fuel Jettison?
What to Consider

There are important issues

when deciding to land
overweight, burn off fuel,
or jettison fuel.

14

a e r o q u a rt e r ly qtr_03 | 07

by Rick Colella,
Flight Operations Engineer

Due to continuing increases in the cost of fuel,

airlines want help deciding whether to land
overweight, burn off fuel, or jettison fuel. Each
choice has its own set of factors to consider.
Holding to burn off fuel or jettisoning fuel prior to
landing will result in increased fuel cost and timerelated operational costs. Landing overweight
requires an overweight landing inspection with its
associated cost. Many airlines provide their flight

boeing.com/commerc i a l / a e r o m a g a z i n e

An overweight landing is defined as a landing made

at a gross weight in excess of the maximum design
(i.e., structural) landing weight for a particular
model. A pilot may consider making an overweight
landing when a situation arises that requires the
airplane to return to the takeoff airport or divert to
another airport soon after takeoff. In these cases, the
airplane may arrive at the landing airport at a weight
considerably above the maximum design landing
weight. The pilot must then decide whether to reduce
the weight prior to landing or land overweight. The
weight can be reduced either by holding to burn off
fuel or by jettisoning fuel. There are important
issues to consider when a decision must be made to
land overweight, burn off fuel, or jettison fuel.

crews with guidelines to enable the pilot to make

an intelligent decision to burn off fuel, jettison fuel,
or land overweight considering all relevant factors
of any given situation.
This article provides general information and
technical data on the structural and performance
aspects of an overweight landing to assist airlines
in determining which option is best suited to their
operation and to a given situation. The article

covers these facets of overweight landings and

fuel jettisoning:
Regulatory aspects.
Safety and ecological aspects.
Airplane structural capability.
Airplane performance capability.
Automatic landings.
Overweight landing inspection requirements.

15

FLAP PLACARD SPEED MARGINS AT WEIGHTS

UP TO MAXIMUM TAKEOFF WEIGHT

Boeing Models with Fuel Jettison Systems

Figure 1

Landing overweight and

jettisoning fuel are both
considered safe procedures.

Regulatory aspects
The primary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
regulations involved in landing overweight and fuel
jettison are:
Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 25.1519
Requires the maximum landing weight to be an
operating limitation.
FAR 91.9 Requires compliance with
operating limitations.
FAR 121.557 and FAR 121.559 Allow the
pilot in command to deviate from prescribed
procedures as required in an emergency
situation in the interest of safety. In June1972,
the FAA issued Air Carrier Operations Bulletin
No. 72-11 giving three examples of situations
the FAA considered typical of those under
which pilots may be expected to use their
emergency authority in electing to land
overweight:
Any malfunction that would render the
airplane unairworthy.
Any condition or combination, thereof,
mechanical or otherwise, in which an
expeditious landing would reduce the
exposure to the potential of additional
problems which would result in a
derogation or compromise of safety.

16

Serious illness of crew or passengers which

would require immediate medical attention.
FAR 25.1001 Requires a fuel jettison
system unless it can be shown that the
airplane meets the climb requirements of
FAR25.119 and 25.121(d) at maximum
takeoff weight, less the actual or computed
weight of fuel necessary for a 15-minute flight
comprising a takeoff, go-around, and landing
at the airport of departure.

To comply with FAR 24.1001, the 747 and

MD-11, for example, require a fuel jettison system.
Some models, such as the 777 and some 767
airplanes have a fuel jettison system installed, but
it is not required by FAR. Other models such as the
DC-9, 717, 737, 757, and MD-80/90 do not require,
or do not have, a fuel jettison system based on
compliance with FAR Part 25.119 and 25.121(d).

Safety and ecological aspects

Landing overweight and fuel jettisoning are both
considered safe procedures: There are no acci
dents on record attributed to either cause. In the
preamble to Amendment 25-18 to FAR Part 25,
relative to fuel jettison, the FAA stated, There has
been no adverse service experience with airplanes
certificated under Part 25 involved in overweight

landings. Furthermore, service experience indi

cates that damage due to overweight landing is
extremely rare.
Obviously, landing at weights above the maxi
mum design landing weight reduces the normal
performance margins. An overweight landing with
an engine inoperative or a system failure may
be less desirable than landing below maximum
landing weight. Yet, delaying the landing with a
malfunctioning system or engine failure in order
to reduce weight or jettison fuel may expose the
airplane to additional system deterioration that can
make the situation worse. The pilot in command is
in the best position to assess all relevant factors
and determine the best course of action.
Some operators have questioned whether fuel
jettison is permissible when an engine or airframe
fire exists. There is no restriction on fuel jettison
during an in-flight fire, whether inside or outside
the airplane. During airplane certification, Boeing
demonstrates to the FAA in a variety of flight
conditions that jettisoned fuel does not impinge or
reattach to airplane surfaces. As fuel is jettisoned,
it is rapidly broken up into small droplets, which
then vaporize. Boeing does not recommend
operator-improvised fuel jettison procedures,
such as jettisoning fuel from only one side during
an engine fire. Such procedures are not only
a e r o q u a rt e r ly qtr_03 | 07

210

747-400 Flaps 25 Placard

200

777 Flaps 20 Placard

MD-11 Flaps 35 Placard

190

AIRSPEED kts

777 Flaps 25 Placard

180

767 Flaps 25 Placard

Vref 20

747-400B
Vref 25

MD-11
Vref 35

170

767-300ER
Vref 25

777-200ER

160

Vref 25
150

140
300

340

380

420

460

500

540

580

620

660

700

740

780

820

860

900

gross weight 1,000 lbs

unnecessary but also can increase jettison time

and crew workload.
The ecological aspects of fuel jettison have
been most closely studied by the United States Air
Force (USAF). These studies have shown that, in
general, fuel jettisoned above 5,000 to 6,000 feet
will completely vaporize before reaching the ground.
Therefore, Boeings general recommendation is to
jettison fuel above 5,000 to 6,000 feet whenever
possible, although there is no restriction on jettison
ing at lower altitudes if considered necessary by
the flight crew.
Fuel jettison studies have indicated that the
most significant variables related to fuel vapori
zation are fuel type and outside air temperature.
Some studies found that temperature can have
a very significant effect on the altitude needed
to completely vaporize fuel. For example, one
USAF study found that a 36-degree Fahrenheit
(20-degree Celsius) reduction in temperature
can change the amount of liquid fuel reaching
the ground by as much as a factor of 10. Other
factors such as fuel jettison nozzle dispersion
characteristics, airplane wake, and other atmos
pheric conditions can affect the amount of fuel
that reaches the ground.
Even though fuel is vaporized, it is still sus
pended in the atmosphere. The odor can be
pronounced, and the fuel will eventually reach
boeing.com/commerc i a l / a e r o m a g a z i n e

the ground. Boeing is not aware of any ecological

interest promoting a prohibition on fuel jettisoning.
Because of the relatively small amount of fuel that
is jettisoned, the infrequency of use, and the safety
issues that may require a fuel jettison, such regula
tions are not likely to be promulgated.

Airplane structural capability

Overweight landings are safe because of the
conservatism required in the design of transport
category airplanes by FAR Part 25.
FAR criteria require that landing gear design
be based on:
A sink rate of 10 feet per second at the
maximum design landing weight; and
A sink rate of 6 feet per second at the
maximum design takeoff weight.

Typical sink rates at touchdown are on the

order of 2 to 3 feet per second, and even a
hard landing rarely exceeds 6 feet per second.
Additionally, the landing loads are based on the
worst possible landing attitudes resulting in high
loading on individual gear. The 747-400 provides
an excellent example. The 747-400 body gear,
which are the most aft main gear, are designed
to a 12-degree nose-up body attitude condition.
In essence, the body gear can absorb the entire

landing load. The wing gear criteria are similarly

stringent: 8 degrees roll at 0degrees pitch.
Other models are also capable of landing
at maximum design takeoff weight, even in
unfavorable attitudes at sink rates up to 6 feet
per second. This is amply demonstrated during
certification testing, when many landings are
performed within 1percent of maximum design
takeoff weight.
When landing near the maximum takeoff
weight, flap placard speeds at landing flap
positions must be observed. Due to the
conservative criteria used in establishing flap
placard speeds, Boeing models have ample
approach speed margins at weights up to the
maximum takeoff weight (see fig. 1).
In addition to specifying a maximum landing
weight, the FAA-approved airplane flight manual
(AFM) for some 747-400 and MD-11 airplanes
includes a limitation on the maximum inflight
weight with landing flaps. This weight is conser
vatively established to comply with FAR25.345,
flaps down maneuvering to a load factor of 2.0.
Compliance with FAR 25.345 is shown at a weight
sufficiently above the maximum design landing
weight to allow for flap extension and maneuvering
prior to landing. Because the loads developed on
the flaps are primarily a function of airspeed and
are virtually independent of weight, the flaps will

17

landing field length margin at weights

up to maximum takeoff weight

Figure 2

13

London Heathrow

landing field length 1,000 ft

11

PA = 2,000 ft
OAT = 30 deg C
No Reverser Credit
Zero Wind
Actual Landing Distance
No Factors

Maui

MD-11
Flaps 35/EXT

747-400B
Flaps 25
Flaps 20

777-200ER

767-300ER
Flaps 25

Flaps 25

3
300

340

380

420

460

500

540

580

620

660

700

740

780

820

860

900

gross weight 1,000 lbs

18

a e r o q u a rt e r ly qtr_03 | 07

Overweight automatic landings are not

recommended. Autopilots on Boeing airplanes
are not certified for automatic landing above
the maximum design landing weight.

not be overstressed as long as airspeed does not

exceed the flap placard speed.
If the maximum in-flight weight with landing
flaps is exceeded, no special structural inspection
is required unless the flap placard speed or
the maximum landing weight is also exceeded.
Generally, if the maximum in-flight weight with
landing flaps is exceeded, the maximum design
landing weight will also be exceeded and, by
definition, an overweight landing inspection
will be required.
Loading on the basic wing structure due to
increased landing weight can be controlled by
limiting the bank angle. To maintain reasonable
structural margins, Boeing recommends that
operating load factors be limited to those corres
ponding to a stabilized 30-degree banked turn.
All Boeing airplanes have adequate strength
margins during overweight landings when normal
operating procedures are used, bank angle does
not exceed 30 degrees, and flap placard speeds
are not exceeded.

Airplane performance capability

Increased gross weight can have a significant
effect on airplane performance. Whenever possible,
it is strongly recommended that normal FAR landing
performance margins be maintained even during
boeing.com/commerc i a l / a e r o m a g a z i n e

overweight landing. The AFM typically provides

landing performance data at weights significantly
above the maximum design landing weight and
can be used in conjunction with landing analysis
programs to calculate landing performance.
The landing field length capability of Boeing
airplanes is such that, even ignoring reverse thrust,
excess stopping margin is available at weights well
above the maximum design landing weight (see
fig. 2). The data in figure 2 are based on a dry
runway with maximum manual braking. Wet and
slippery runway field-length requirements, as well
as autobrake performance, should be verified from
the landing distance information in the perform
ance section of the flight crew operations manual
(FCOM) or quick reference handbook (QRH).
Climb performance exceeds the FAA landing
climb gradient requirements (3.2% gradient with all
engines operating, landing flaps and gear down),
even at the maximum design takeoff weight as
shown by the Landing Climb symbols in Figure3.
Climb performance generally meets the FAA
approach gradient requirements (one engine
inoperative with approach flaps and gear up)
at weights well above maximum design landing
weight as shown by the App Climb curves in
figure3, and a positive approach climb gradient
is available with one engine inoperative even at
the maximum design takeoff weight.

Normally, landing brake energy is not a problem

for an overweight landing because the brakes are
sized to handle a rejected takeoff at maximum
takeoff weight. When using normal landing flaps,
brake energy limits will not be exceeded at all
gross weights. When landing at speeds associated
with non-normal procedures with nonstandard flap
settings, maximum effort stops may exceed the
brake energy limits. In these cases, Boeing
recommends maximizing use of the available
runway for stopping. For Boeing 7-series models
other than the 717, techniques for accomplishing
this are provided in the overweight landing
discussion in the Landing chapter of the Boeing
flight crew training manuals (FCTM).
The stability and control aspects of overweight
landings have been reviewed and found to be
satisfactory. Stabilizer trim requirements during
approach are unchanged provided normal Vref
speeds are flown. Speed stability, the control
column force required to vary airspeed from the
trimmed airspeed, is slightly improved. Pitch and
roll response are unchanged or slightly improved
as the increased airspeed more than compensates
for increased mass and inertia effects.
Additional information on overweight landing
techniques for Boeing 7-series models other than
the 717 can be found in the Landing chapter of
the FCTM.

19

climb performance margins at weights

up to maximum takeoff weight

Figure 3

10

PA = 2,000 ft
OAT = 30 deg C
Go-Around Thrust Limits
Vref+5 kts
7-Series: App Flaps 20
Land Flaps 25
MD-11: App Flaps 28
Land Flaps 35

U 767-300 ER
Landing Climb

GRADIENT %

MD-11 L
Landing Climb

S 777-200 ER
Landing Climb

747-400B N
Landing Climb

767-300ER
App Climb

747-400B
App Climb

777-200ER
App Climb

MD-11
App Climb

FAR App Climb Limit

Four-Engine Airplanes
Three-Engine Airplanes
Two-Engine Airplanes

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

gross weight 1,000 lbs

Automatic landings

Overweight automatic landings are not recom

mended. Autopilots on Boeing airplanes are not
certified for automatic landing above the maximum
design landing weight. At higher-than-normal
speeds and weights, the performance of these
systems may not be satisfactory and has not been
thoroughly tested. An automatic approach may
be attempted; however, the pilot should disengage
the autopilot prior to flare height and accomplish
a manual landing.
In an emergency, should the pilot determine
that an overweight autoland is the safest course
of action, the approach and landing should be
closely monitored by the pilot and the following
factors considered:

Overweight landing
inspection requirements

Touchdown may be beyond the normal touch

down zone; allow for additional landing distance.
Touchdown at higher-than-normal sink rates
may result in exceeding structural limits.

20

Plan for a go-around or manual landing if

autoland performance is unsatisfactory;
automatic go-around can be initiated until just
prior to touchdown and can be continued even
if the airplane touches down after initiation of
the go-around.

The Boeing airplane maintenance manual (AMM)

provides a special inspection that is required any
time an overweight landing occurs, regardless of
how smooth the landing. The AMM inspection is
provided in two parts. The Phase I (or A-check)
conditional inspection looks for obvious signs of
structural distress, such as wrinkled skin, popped
fasteners, or bent components in areas which are
readily accessible. If definite signs of overstressing
are found, the Phase II (or B-check) inspection

must be performed. This is a much more detailed

inspection and requires opening access panels
to examine critical structural components. The
PhaseI or A-check conditional inspection can
typically be accomplished in two to four labor
hours. This kind of inspection is generally not a
problem because an airplane that has returned
or diverted typically has a problem that takes
longer to clear than the inspection itself.

Summary
When circumstances force a pilot to choose
between an overweight landing or jettisoning fuel,
a number of factors must be considered. The
information in this article is designed to facilitate
these decisions. For more information, please
contact Boeing Flight Operations Engineering
at FlightOps.Engineering@boeing.com.

a e r o q u a rt e r ly qtr_03 | 07

787
technology
highlight
The 787 design incorporates onboard
structural health management
technologies which will mitigate
the operational impact and costs
associated with structural inspections
after an overweight or hard landing.
This technology will greatly simplify
the process of determining whether
or not a landing has exceeded the
capabilities of the airplane structure
and will significantly reduce the
inspection burden on the operator.
This capability will reduce the overall
downtime and maintenance costs
associated with overweight and hard
landing events without impacting
flight crew workload or operational
procedures. More information on this
new technology will be covered in a
future issue of AERO.