B777 flight crew has overweight landing at rjbb.

Attributes
ACN	571519
Time
Date	200301
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : rjbb.airport
State Reference	FO
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zzz.artcc
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	landing : roll
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : multi engine
Experience	flight time type : 1938
ASRS Report	571519
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : company policies non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other flight crewb other other : 3
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

Planned by dd to arrive at maximum landing weight due to ETOPS drift-down fuel at third pet. Flight was planned and flown to manage arrival fuel to meet these requirements. Captain's leg. Landed overweight due to poor management and captain's refusal to consider crew inputs. Both first officer's repeatedly tried to offer solutions to allow us to land below maximum and were rejected out-of-hand. On final when it was indisputable that we would land overweight, first officer advised captain that he would have to exercise his emergency authority/authorized to knowingly continue and suggested a go around to burn down 1200 pounds. Captain elected to exercise emergency authority/authorized -- with no real emergency. To continue and land. During the entire trip (sfo-kix-sfo) captain exhibited some of the worst CRM techniques I've seen in many yrs -- random and conflicting decisions that were more about asserting his authority/authorized than flying/managing the aircraft. The overweight landing was just a perfect example of the captain's refusal to consider any input that didn't originate with him. Both first officer's made a number of suggestions to burn-down fuel that were rejected to simply assert his control. The decision to 'exercise' his authority/authorized to land had nothing to do with the safer operation of the flight -- he just didn't want to admit he was wrong.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B777 FLC HAS OVERWT LNDG AT RJBB.

Narrative: PLANNED BY DD TO ARRIVE AT MAX LNDG WT DUE TO ETOPS DRIFT-DOWN FUEL AT THIRD PET. FLT WAS PLANNED AND FLOWN TO MANAGE ARR FUEL TO MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS. CAPT'S LEG. LANDED OVERWT DUE TO POOR MGMNT AND CAPT'S REFUSAL TO CONSIDER CREW INPUTS. BOTH FO'S REPEATEDLY TRIED TO OFFER SOLUTIONS TO ALLOW US TO LAND BELOW MAX AND WERE REJECTED OUT-OF-HAND. ON FINAL WHEN IT WAS INDISPUTABLE THAT WE WOULD LAND OVERWT, FO ADVISED CAPT THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO EXERCISE HIS EMER AUTH TO KNOWINGLY CONTINUE AND SUGGESTED A GAR TO BURN DOWN 1200 LBS. CAPT ELECTED TO EXERCISE EMER AUTH -- WITH NO REAL EMER. TO CONTINUE AND LAND. DURING THE ENTIRE TRIP (SFO-KIX-SFO) CAPT EXHIBITED SOME OF THE WORST CRM TECHNIQUES I'VE SEEN IN MANY YRS -- RANDOM AND CONFLICTING DECISIONS THAT WERE MORE ABOUT ASSERTING HIS AUTH THAN FLYING/MANAGING THE ACFT. THE OVERWT LNDG WAS JUST A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE CAPT'S REFUSAL TO CONSIDER ANY INPUT THAT DIDN'T ORIGINATE WITH HIM. BOTH FO'S MADE A NUMBER OF SUGGESTIONS TO BURN-DOWN FUEL THAT WERE REJECTED TO SIMPLY ASSERT HIS CTL. THE DECISION TO 'EXERCISE' HIS AUTH TO LAND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SAFER OP OF THE FLT -- HE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO ADMIT HE WAS WRONG.

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.