Narrative:

Flight departed tpa for las near maximum weight. About 30 mins into flight, a passenger became ill which required us to turn back to tpa. The airbus has no fuel dump system so we prepared and executed the overweight landing procedure. Maximum landing weight for the airbus A320 is 142198 pounds. We landed at 154300 pounds. Part of the A320 overweight landing checklist calls for a maximum rate of 360 FPM at touchdown. We touched down at 83 FPM. At the gate, maintenance control was contacted regarding an overweight landing check. Maintenance control stated that since the aircraft did not exceed 360 FPM at touchdown, it was not considered an overweight landing. No maintenance check was needed. Maintenance control went on to say that the crew need only enter an 'information only' write-up in the logbook. The captain and I did a postflt walkaround and found nothing unusual. The captain had done an overweight landing 9 months earlier in august and concurred with maintenance control. After offloading the ill passenger and onloading fuel, we were airborne again for las. En route, the captain opened the fom to look up the exact verbiage for the 'information only' write-up. It was there he discovered that there was no longer a distinction between landing overweight at less than 360 FPM. According to our fom, a landing over maximum structural landing weight requires a maintenance inspection regardless of rate of descent at touchdown. The fom had been revised oct/97 and the definition of overweight landing had been changed. Upon landing in las, maintenance was contacted and advised of the need for an inspection. Maintenance insisted it was not needed but eventually complied. Later the A320 fleet manager was notified and was also unaware of the change. Obviously being rushed to depart tpa is no excuse for neglecting to read the fom. However, if the manual used by maintenance control and airbus industries had agreed with our fom, this would not have been an issue. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the crew had referenced the aircraft manual after their second departure from tpa and that is the one that said an inspection was required. The maintenance manual was from airbus and mentioned the 360 FPM clause but the sentence was omitted wherein an inspection was required. At las the captain had requested the inspection and maintenance refused until the captain said the aircraft wasn't leaving until it was done. The ground crew performed the inspection under protest. The first officer stated that the company is now aware of the conflicting remarks within the maintenance manual and the aircraft manual and are making adjustments in the interpretation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC ON AN A320 MAKES AN OVERWT LNDG AND RPTS SAME TO THEIR MAINT CTL SECTION. A FLT RELEASE IS ISSUED WITHOUT PERFORMING AN INSPECTION OF THE ACFT SINCE THE MAINT SUPVR DETERMINED THAT THE OVERWT PARAMETERS HAD BEEN MET IN HIS MANUAL. THE CREW DID NOT CHK THEIR MANUAL UNTIL INFLT AND DISCOVERED A REQUIREMENT FOR AN INSPECTION. CREW CITES A DIFFERENCE BTWN THE 2 REFED PUBS.

Narrative: FLT DEPARTED TPA FOR LAS NEAR MAX WT. ABOUT 30 MINS INTO FLT, A PAX BECAME ILL WHICH REQUIRED US TO TURN BACK TO TPA. THE AIRBUS HAS NO FUEL DUMP SYS SO WE PREPARED AND EXECUTED THE OVERWT LNDG PROC. MAX LNDG WT FOR THE AIRBUS A320 IS 142198 LBS. WE LANDED AT 154300 LBS. PART OF THE A320 OVERWT LNDG CHKLIST CALLS FOR A MAX RATE OF 360 FPM AT TOUCHDOWN. WE TOUCHED DOWN AT 83 FPM. AT THE GATE, MAINT CTL WAS CONTACTED REGARDING AN OVERWT LNDG CHK. MAINT CTL STATED THAT SINCE THE ACFT DID NOT EXCEED 360 FPM AT TOUCHDOWN, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED AN OVERWT LNDG. NO MAINT CHK WAS NEEDED. MAINT CTL WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE CREW NEED ONLY ENTER AN 'INFO ONLY' WRITE-UP IN THE LOGBOOK. THE CAPT AND I DID A POSTFLT WALKAROUND AND FOUND NOTHING UNUSUAL. THE CAPT HAD DONE AN OVERWT LNDG 9 MONTHS EARLIER IN AUGUST AND CONCURRED WITH MAINT CTL. AFTER OFFLOADING THE ILL PAX AND ONLOADING FUEL, WE WERE AIRBORNE AGAIN FOR LAS. ENRTE, THE CAPT OPENED THE FOM TO LOOK UP THE EXACT VERBIAGE FOR THE 'INFO ONLY' WRITE-UP. IT WAS THERE HE DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS NO LONGER A DISTINCTION BTWN LNDG OVERWT AT LESS THAN 360 FPM. ACCORDING TO OUR FOM, A LNDG OVER MAX STRUCTURAL LNDG WT REQUIRES A MAINT INSPECTION REGARDLESS OF RATE OF DSCNT AT TOUCHDOWN. THE FOM HAD BEEN REVISED OCT/97 AND THE DEFINITION OF OVERWT LNDG HAD BEEN CHANGED. UPON LNDG IN LAS, MAINT WAS CONTACTED AND ADVISED OF THE NEED FOR AN INSPECTION. MAINT INSISTED IT WAS NOT NEEDED BUT EVENTUALLY COMPLIED. LATER THE A320 FLEET MGR WAS NOTIFIED AND WAS ALSO UNAWARE OF THE CHANGE. OBVIOUSLY BEING RUSHED TO DEPART TPA IS NO EXCUSE FOR NEGLECTING TO READ THE FOM. HOWEVER, IF THE MANUAL USED BY MAINT CTL AND AIRBUS INDUSTRIES HAD AGREED WITH OUR FOM, THIS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE CREW HAD REFED THE ACFT MANUAL AFTER THEIR SECOND DEP FROM TPA AND THAT IS THE ONE THAT SAID AN INSPECTION WAS REQUIRED. THE MAINT MANUAL WAS FROM AIRBUS AND MENTIONED THE 360 FPM CLAUSE BUT THE SENTENCE WAS OMITTED WHEREIN AN INSPECTION WAS REQUIRED. AT LAS THE CAPT HAD REQUESTED THE INSPECTION AND MAINT REFUSED UNTIL THE CAPT SAID THE ACFT WASN'T LEAVING UNTIL IT WAS DONE. THE GND CREW PERFORMED THE INSPECTION UNDER PROTEST. THE FO STATED THAT THE COMPANY IS NOW AWARE OF THE CONFLICTING REMARKS WITHIN THE MAINT MANUAL AND THE ACFT MANUAL AND ARE MAKING ADJUSTMENTS IN THE INTERP.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.