Does Anyone Still Teach the Fundamentals of Weight and Balance anymore?

[Opssys]

In another place, I have been looking at the building of a generic Weight and Balance System and found my very long ago training useful.
This has made me wonder if any company today gives its staff anything like the training I received 30+ years ago.

For example starting with the Basic Empty Weight and Index of the Aircraft and literally adding the Passenger Seats by weight and index to create the required configuration and adding in the varius other elements by weight and index, then Crew, Catering,, Fuel, etc. Finally completing the Loadsheet by using supplied Passenger, Baggage and Cargo information using Hold Mean Indexes and Passengers by Row.

I suspect not, but I just had to ask!

[RollNow!]

Thats how i learned mate.

Baisic a/c weight + required ops items + crew + pax by row/bay split + fuel + load in compartments + cargo etc etc. Giving summary weights all the way along checking against maximums then making adjustments for fuel and other index changes et al.

I know that sounds like all weight and balance but i learned it step by step in the way you mentioned. Good way imho :ok:

[mutt]

if any company today gives its staff anything like the training I received 30+ years ago
We get trained in Seattle by the Boeing Weight and Balance gurus.... extremely intensive 2 week course.

Mutt

[merlinxx]

Just remember to keep the ruler straight, not too sharp a pencil (so as not to tear the top sheet), no chinagraphs, no smudging the carbon copy, make sure the TABSO, SAM, Spantax, World Wide Canada, Wardair etc., crew can read your scruffy presentation. "If you do this, then go fill yer boots my son" This was the 'go forward and do it' talk given to me back in 1963 after 2 days on W&B trng.

Never forget the basics & they won't forget about you!:ok:

[Retired Redcap]

I was taught the good old fashioned way nearly 40 years ago. I know that when I retired 18 months ago even the best of load control training was a mere shadow of what had been.
But then I was probably seen as a fossil by the newcomers to the art.

[john_tullamarine]

extremely intensive 2 week course

Starting with no/little background and having the end result being competence in weighing, weight control, and complex loading systems ... that's about what it takes ... about a week to cover up to routine stuff, weighings etc... and a week to cover all the ins and outs of loading systems.

[idlethrust]

I used to teach 2-3week load control courses, really starting from scratch, aerodynamics and the usual why does an aircraft fly, that gets new guys really thinking! Having taught the subject for 15 years there have been good training courses given by airlines, BA and LH are pretty good, but these days you just tend to go with one week manual loadsheets then 2 weeks EDP, after all its the days of Central load control CLC, thats my game now, not like the old days with trim wheels and real challenges...............aaaaar pull up a sand bag time.........:ok:

[Opssys]

All the replies seem to be from people who received their basic training in 'my era'.

As someone who went into airline systems in 1979-80, one of my early concerns was actually the negative effects of de-skilling the various functions to the point there was little or no knowledge of the basics.
This resulting in those responsible for maintaining a computers semi-permanent data not understanding what they were entering and not having the knowledge to query what to my generation was obviously incorrect data. This did not apply to just Load Control/Load Planning, but across the Ground Disciplines.

For most of the next 20 years, Clients and Employers always had one, or two 'old timers' in each discipline who knew the fundamentals, but there seemed to be few following in their footsteps.

In a recent telephone conversation the caller quoted what I wrote in an internal paper (they hoard all documentation) on this in the early 1980s and said that they had just seen for real what I quoted as an example! (Tom If your reading this send me a copy :-)

Whilst many foreign Airlines do train the fundamentals of each discipline and then train on the computer, sytem I am increasingly concerned this is no longer the case in the UK Airline/Handling Agency environment and has'nt been for a looooooooong time.

[Opssys]

In John Tullamarine's post, which I realise was from a Pilot's view point, I would take slight issue with:

eighings etc... and a week to cover all the ins and outs of loading systems.
When I was young (which is either for 10 minutes after I woke up this morning, or 36 years ago) there was a very detailed Part of the Flight Operations Manual on Loading, covering: , Bulk, Pallets, ULD's, Hold Floor Strengths, Load Spreading, Restraining Load and Lashing equipment types and advantages/disadvantages, plus ballast types and usage, also an entire section on Dangerous Goods, restrictions on and Handling of, plus Human Remains, Live Animals, Ammunition (excluding what is now Article 51 of the ANO) etc.
Just taking dangerous goods as an example for those involved on a day to day basis this is now a three day course leading to certification (which has to be renewed after two years). For Air Crew the course is half-day, but requires refreshers.

Therfore whilst for Air Crew a two week course is probably right. For those Ground Disciplines Load Planning, Loading team Leaders and Dispatchers, the Course for Practical Loading should be at least a Week plus the three day Dangerous Goods Course.

Dangerous Goods is one of the few areas where training has improved . I hope that in other areas Load Planners and head loaders are still trained in Spreading, Restraint and the other basics like not to put AVI with HUM.

On a lighter note, does anyone remember the infamous:
Snake Bites Loader, Snake Dies incident at Gatwick circa 1976?

[scrivenger]

The traffic manuals of Dan Air and Bcal were both extremely thourough I seem to recall from the 80's. In this day and age the Air France traffic manual is excellent, but the hands on manual training seems all to have disappeared. Oh for a whizz wheel and a thick pencil!!

[john_tullamarine]

In John Tullamarine's post, which I realise was from a Pilot's view point

.. actually, no. My comments derive from a 35-year weight control engineering background .. amongst my other engineering sins ....

Thoughts are

(a) typical airline pilot course - day and a half to two days to cover the (very) basics of the subject and how-to-do-it with the relevant loading system for the operation. Have run many such courses and the output appears to be adequately functional. One keeps in mind that a disciplined airline operation has a lot of support folk in the background who look after the harder nitty gritty side of the work. The pilots only need a comparatively superficial understanding although sufficient to check and detect loading/loading system execution errors.

(b) typical GA pilot course - (a) plus bits of (c) and (d) to make up for such pilots not having the organisational support that the airline folk have... say, three days.

(c) course suitable for basic weight control folk (ie those who supervise weighings, and look after routine weight change history for each aircraft) - a week (covers regulatory requirements, several weighings and paperwork, basic loading systems).

(d) course to cover design of loading systems - a week (covers the ins and outs of loading systems with heavy emphasis on the more complex systems .. paper and prayerwheel based trimsheets, spreadsheet systems).

(e) for the airline professional load control folk, I would cut (c) and (d) down to a week (no real need to do weighings and design of complex loading systems beyond a reasonable understanding) plus, certainly, a week or two on all the matters raised in Opssys' post.

[merlinxx]

I wonder, what answer would you get if you asked the 'todays' load controller where each particular aircrafts moment-of-arm is measured from?

[42psi]

For once I don't feel I'm a lone voice in the wind :D


I too learnt the trade back when it required understanding and knowledge :ok:




Sadly these days I think it's rarely true .... only the other day I heard someone advise ground of an estimated 30 min delay as they were waiting for the handling agent to find someone who could do a manual loadsheet :sad:




When I was trained we were warned that a system failure more than ten minutes before departure could not be used as a valid departure delay reason.



Also remember once working out the trim effect of passenger(s) on the shorts 330 going from row 1 to the toilet :E



I must really be getting old :\

[groundhand]

At the risk of adding to the 'in my day' views my ten penny worth.

In the 30+ years since I training in what was then know as Weight and Balance and is now called Mass and Balance the move to computer calculated and generated documentation has changed the whole face of Load Control. The delights of the drop line, the trim wheel and indicies are all familiar and I was more than happy to learn new systems or new aircraft specifics.

Over many years of creating flight documentation it always surprised me how few flight crew could actually do their own paperwork; this was brought home to me when I had to run training courses (c.1984) for a regional airline to ensure that their crews could do their own paperwork at a European airport where the locals were on strike. It was like having 'new ones' in the office. Yes they understood flight dynamics, yes they understood the limitations but actually doing load and trim calculations in the time frames required was 'challenging' for the vast majority.

Times have moved on.

Departure Control Systems are, in current times, incredibly reliable. The issues for the airlines and the ground handling companies when it comes to training manual mass and balance is the likelihood, or not, of the individual practicing those skill at a level to which they can be maintained. In today's OTP driven market the risks of doing live manual departures at large airports where communications are geared for DCS is not without it's issues. The fail safes in the DCS's will not allow critical mistakes to be made; over weight, out of trim etc. is all flagged if the operator tries to enter incorrect information.

An added advantage of DCS is that the airline can change the basic weights or balance settings for an aircraft which becomes active across their whole network at a stroke; no long winded manual updates, manual update receipts etc.

My view is that all Dispatchers should understand the basics of aerodynamics and the effect of weight on balance. They need to be able to read AND UNDERSTAND the computer generated loading instructions and loadsheets. They also need to be able to cross check these manually.
There will always be a place for Mass and Balance specialists in the small market of specialised cargo carriers or 'one-off' charter market.

I also think that the market will move more and more to centralised load control facilities, especially at the smaller airports. The skills will be concentrated in specialist areas and with competencies maintained.

In todays market the cost of training DCS mass and balance is one of the drivers. The airlines do not want to invest in this and so rely on the integrity of their, or their contracted, computer systems. To add the costs of individuals being trained in an area that they are unlikely to use in their jobs is not something most CEO's or FD's will approve.

In a similar vein, is it fair to compare the skills needed, and the training provided to gather such skills, on todays flightdecks with those required in the 60's and 70's?

This is the industry we are now in.
GH

[Opssys]

As Groundhand as written, times have changed and whilst I believe there is a need to train the fundamentals of load control (probably through City and Guilds type courses), the likely hood of these being applied on a daily basis are increasing limited to certain niche operations.

With DCS System Load Control Modules and Load Planning tools the detailed knowledge level doesn't have to high to Load Plan and to transmit a Loadsheet except for those staff dealing with the semi-permanent data entries for the DCS and of course those calculating what those entries will be.

My concern, hopefully unfounded, is that these staff will increasingly labelled Administrative Support and under trained, under appreciated, under paid and yet these will be the people with the Core Competencies.

Also I am being parochial in that whilst training in the UK has changed, in some other countries the basics of each discipline are still taught as a matter of course, so maybe we just outsource these functions.

[G-WHOT]

I was surprised a few years ago that a cargo handling comany at LHR didn't explain in basic training the safety/ops reason behind check weighing cargo - only the commercial aspect of Air Waybill weight for revenue recovery was taught. Also often the scales at the doors were not calibrated or didn't work.
This handling company had its origins as KLM cargo and the staff that joined and trained during KLM's time were given as part of a comprehensive course training as to why check weighing cargo on arrival was important. So with a new generation not being given this info incorrect weight cargo could get through and cause an incident or worse a fatal accident!?
Personally I did all the C & G courses at East Surrey College in the early 90's and found them really useful though even by then the course material was getting dated.
What ever systems people learn if they are not taught in context they might miss the relevance and signicance of what they do as a job.

[MSF]

The RAF still teaches w&b from basics to its Movement Controllers.
a friend of mine on a recent w&b course in DUB told me that his instructor didn't know what she was talking about and all her students bar him failed the final exam.

I can see disasters in the future arising from a lack of basic competence.

[Opssys]

I have just read the post from MSF:

a friend of mine on a recent w&b course in DUB told me that his instructor didn't know what she was talking about and all her students bar him failed the final exam.
This is probably a case of good Instructors can teach anything methodology . An approach that demands the Documentation is written by those who do know the subject inside out and have taught it, so know the range of questions and queries those on the course will ask. Then the nominated instructor will still require preparation time to learn the course documentation and time to be fully prepared for each lesson.

Although I find the process counter intuitive, it does work, providing:
A Good Instructor, Top Class Documentation and sufficient preparation time. If any of these requirements NOT met, then those on the course are wasting their time and someone's money.

It appears that MSF friend had a course where none of the above requirements appear to have been met.

[jerboy]

Times have moved on.

100% agree.

I was told by my trainer that as long as we understood all the terms given on a loadsheet (DCS generated or manual), and the basic principles behind them, we would be fine. An understanding of the relationships between indices, MAC and Stab trim is a prime example. As long as we can have a relatively intelligent conversation with the flight crew about various situations (bearing in mind they are trained to a far higher level than you), 99% of the time you'll be fine.

Some of the more obscure things mentioned in this thread really have extremely limited value in commercial airline operations. If I put 100 bags in the back of a 737 or two bins in the front of an A320 do I really need to know about Hold Floor Strengths or the advantages/disadvantages of certain types of lashing? I say no.

And my record time for a manual loadsheet (A321)... 4 min 48 secs. My pencil was on fire after that one :8

[Opssys]

Have just read Jerboys post:

ntelligent conversation with the flight crew about various situations (bearing in mind they are trained to a far higher level than you), 99% of the time you'll be fine.

When I was actually involved in such things Flight Deck would request advice from Load Control wwhen on rare occasions they had to do their own Loadsheets, weight and balance and provide a trim for loading.
On one occasion the Captain decided he knew better and as it was a semi-ferry ignored the advice given and a nasty incident occurred.


If I put 100 bags in the back of a 737 or two bins in the front of an A320 do I really need to know about Hold Floor Strengths or the advantages/disadvantages of certain types of lashing? I say no.

If your simply dealing wth Passenger Baggage on Charter Flights standard trims for the various Aircraft Types handled become almost second nature.
Once Cargo becomes involved then a little more thinking is required especially on bulk loaded aircraft. Spreader Boards are not always required just for HEA Items, but for point loads if the items weight is only carried on a few points, etc. A big item may mean a little lateral thinking about whether to deviate from the simple load plan and load it i say hold two instead of three and lash it. But hey you seem happy wih 99%, so OK, but I was brought up in a different era when Safety is no Accident wasn't just a 'sound bite' and 99% really wasn't good enough.


And my record time for a manual loadsheet (A321)... 4 min 48 secs. My pencil was on fire after that one

Assuming you started from a blamk form and trim chart and, the time included the simple cross check, then that is extremely impressive. Although why you only had that amount of time is of slight concern, but I do accept that an experienced Loadsheet Basher can get it right and be extremely quick as long as another warning from long ago is remembered:
Accuracy is vital speed is secondary.

[jerboy]

Accuracy is vital speed is secondary.

It wasn't for real, it was a quiet day in the office! On the rare occasion we do it for real I double and triple check things obviously.

Interesting points though, I suppose if you're dealing with large volumes of cargo than a greater knowledge of a/c loading procedures is needed, but for the vast majority of load controllers/dispatchers out there deal with pax flights and the same a/c types day in day out.

Safety is no Accident wasn't just a 'sound bite' and 99% really wasn't good enough.

The 99% was referring to discussions with the flight deck, every now and again they'll say something which goes over my head, that may be due to the higher level of training, or just the way they work. It just takes a little explanation on either side of the conversation to ensure we both know what each other's talking about.

Of course when I put signature on a loadsheet/load release etc, to the best of my knowledge its 100% correct because ultimately I know I'm responsible.

[minigundiplomat]

I teach (amongst other things) Weight & Balance from scratch. Should you have no joy and require a tutor, then PM me.

[Retired Redcap]

I find it rather strange that the writer believes that flight deck crew have a greater knowledge of weight and balance than groundstaff. In nearly 40 years of working for a major airline I can tell you they do not. They do investigate load control as part of their command training so that, in theory, they can prepare a loadsheet if no specialist is available. Competent load control staff were well trained in the "old" days and expected to have a depth of knowledge.

[42psi]

Funnily enough many moons ago I recall one airline that saved some cash on turnaround charges (£3.00 as I recall!) by saying flight crew would do the load plan/sheet/balance..... oh and fuel was always problematic (as in getting all the load on while trying to get more than flight plan mins).

Only an 'ickle a/c but req/d seat loading of mail in first two rows, pax in the rest and squeezing every last ounce (OK, OK ... Kilo) of bags/frt/mail into every nook and cranny.


First crew to arrive after the change called up wind components on the way in and went very quite when advised they were the first flight to benefit from their companies new cost saving measure.....


Skipper popped in on arrival and asked would we do it for a fiver "cash in hand" :E ...... he turned out to be the first of a long line :D

[caorider]

Sadly, it would appear that such training is a thing of the past.
In many cases, it is just a matter of filling in the "magic boxes" on a manual load & trim sheet or pressing the "magic keys" ... until something goes wrong!.
Then.... "we did not do that in training....!!!!!
Quality basic training willalways be important

[freightdoggy dog]

Jet2.com F/deck crews get initial/refresher and command mass and balance training taught by the 2 line training loadmasters from the cargo side.

Unfortunately most of the experienced guys retired to the
Channel Express retirement home for old loadmasters called Wickesair !

Did I hear someone say whizz wheel....I'm getting moist now, where's my chinagraph and casio calculator

[Brutes]

Do I pick up a bit of nostalgia in the older folk, I hope you aren’t feeling threatened by the new age creeping up,
Yes the basics are important but new age dispatch systems make stuff that much quicker and easier.
So the old folks can keep up and smoke a little longer on that pipe on coffee break.

Ever crossed your mind to teach us younger folks the tricks of the trade?
Nope takes up to much of your important time I suppose.

[boeingbus2002]

Well, it gets much worse!
Now many companies use "Global Load Control" or Centralised Loadsheet Factories. On actual flights, the ramp agents are given a loading instruction to follow and they send any deviations and amount of bags in any given compartment back to the load controller. What is quite frustrating is when the loadplanning (often completed abroad) contains errors.
Those encountered were:incorrect load priorities or so trim critical at the planning stage that no consideration is taken of passenger seating, or even any comprehension about compartment sizes. (Trying to fit 20 bags into a non-existant net section!) :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[JRC]

Jeppesen dispatch course and refresher course does manual training on weight and balance.
cheers

[Opssys]

Centralised Load Control and Load Planning was an inevitable outcome of computerised DCS and Cargo Systems. From the technology side the 'missing link' was the 'tools' to transmit timely changes from Aircraft Side to the Load Control Centre and the revision in turN being actioned. There are now a range of technologies that can be used in combination so that this link can be integrated in ways to suit a specifIc Airports infrastructure and if implemented sensibly works extremely well.
However at least one implementation has been carried out in a 'Heath Robinson' manner and when it was first described to me I thought I was being 'wound up'. 'One cobbled together' implementation does not invalidate the fact that the technology is viable.

In some countries there may still be regulatory issues, but these will change over time.

Having got the above out off the way, I will finally move back towards the theme of this thread and to Boeingbus2002's post:

On actual flights, the ramp agents are given a loading instruction to follow and they send any deviations and amount of bags in any given compartment back to the load controller. What is quite frustrating is when the loadplanning (often completed abroad) contains errors.
Those encountered were:incorrect load priorities or so trim critical at the planning stage that no consideration is taken of passenger seating, or even any comprehension about compartment sizes. (Trying to fit 20 bags into a non-existant net section!)
Assuming a Centralised Load Control then:
The staff entering the Semi-permanent data on each Carriers Aircraft, MUST have sufficient knowledge to spot errors and each entry must be independently verified before becoming live data
Load Planners working in the Centre MUST be trained to a high standard and checked out on each carriers Aircraft Type.
When dealing with Cargo, whether on Mixed Passenger, or Cargo only flights, Load Planners MUST understand and conform to the regulations on Dangerous, Special Handling and Live Cargo and ensure their trim plan takes these into account and just as importantly ensure their Loading Instructions clearly State these requirements.
When dealing with Bulk Cargo loaded into Holds, Load Planners take note of possible volume problems and if this is likely to be an issue note offload priorities.
Load Planners should be aware of Route and Seasonal variations particularly as regards Baggage (e.g. West Africa Routes, or the Skiing Season). Some of which can be incorporated into the Load Planning Module as 'rules', but also should be part of an online Knowledge Base for the Planners.
Once they have released their Load Plan, they are effectively passing control to the Ramp Dispatcher.
Trim changes during the departure phase can be due to any number of reasons, ranging from the 'unexpected Dog/Cat etc' through an item of Bulk Cargo which cannot be tilted, but will only go through the door, if laid on its side, etc. On a given Flight, even Passenger Baggage may unexpectedly be out of normal range and require a retrim.
Assuming the 'link' between Dispatcher and the Load Control Centre has been implemented properly, then change control of the trim should not be an issue.
The final Last Minute Changes are on most scheduled Flights are Passenger Related and again providing a good link available then these should NOT cause a delay, especially if the final loadsheet is passed by ACARS/AIRCOM after doors closed.Throughout the above, one of the key elements has been the link between the Dispatcher and the Load Control Centre. One of the issues of course is what to do when the system breaks down. For a Handling Agency the procedures may vary from Carrier to Carrier and thus Load Control Centre to Load Control centre. Whatever the procedures are the Dispatcher must be aware of them.

With functions becoming increasing remote form the AIrport, the role of the Dispatcher should be becoming even more important and although 'jack of all trades' a dispatcher must be master of most of them and at least a journeryman in the rest, yet the pressure to reduce the Dispatchers Status and role, which has always been there, has (from conversations I have had over the last two years) actually begun to happen. This is happening at a time when the role and therefore the Status (and consequently Training) of Dispatchers should be enhanced.

[boeingbus2002]

Another problem that arises is when "load controllers" use the "auto load plan" function, thus not actually knowing what is going on. The errors spotted by ramp agents have been attributed to this.

The ramp agents receive a reduced training package which is a cost saving measure. They still enter the specific details required for loadsheets to be produced and still hit a release button. The load controller simply hits another button to send a loadsheet via ACARS or to make it available for re-printing.

(Of course this may work well when completed all in house from one location), however for most long haul carriers, the flight is being operated out of LHR and the loadcontroller is sitting in an office in Bangkok. Cape Town, Istanbul without perhaps even knowing what the holds look like in real life!

Didn't VS have a few incidents due to centralised load planning a while back?
I recall some AAIB reports with various recommenations.

[Opssys]

boeingbus2002.

Another problem that arises is when Load controllers use the auto load plan function, thus not actually knowing what is going on. The errors spotted by ramp agents have been attributed to this.
This type of 'user dependence' is something the Supervisory and Management Staff of the Load Control Centre must avoid, as it happens even if staff are technically competent, they 'let the computer take the strain' and don't even visually check the product output. Of course if their training has been skimped, then their 'user dependence level is 100%, and what was a risk that can be dealt with, becomes a potential danger!
A well designed and administered system improves productivity and overall accuracy within the parameters of its design and the information it holds, but the Human Brain is still much more flexible than any computer system and can deal with what to the computer are anomalies, and take into account information not stored, or not available to the system.


The ramp agents receive a reduced training package which is a cost saving measure. They still enter the specific details required for loadsheets to be produced and still hit a release button. The load controller simply hits another button to send a loadsheet via ACARS or to make it available for re-printing.
Whether a reduced Training Package is adequate, depends on what it is reduced from (some posts tend to indicate even where centralised Load Control is not used Load Control Training is already at minimum). Well I am sure I will be contradicted, but my view is that:
A Dispatcher should have a short Load Control Course, a full course on practical loading and dangerous goods. The Carrier brief for Dispatchers should include the same drawings by Aircraft type as for Load Planners and any special loading requirements (Standard EIC, or Spare Packs).

The means of,and distribution of, Documents (Loading Instructions/Plan, Loadsheet, Special Load Notifications, etc) are really down to what is available at the Airport of Departure (The WAN/LAN and Device Configurations would have to be worked out with IT Support) and/or Aircraft and can be any combination of Printer/Display in Offices, Gates, Dispatcher Vehicle, or ACARS/AIRCOM to Cockpit, or Cabin Management System. Obviously the Dispatcher must know what a particular Carrier requires and if ACAR/AIRCOM Equipped is this where the Load Sheet will be delivered and whether draft and final are required.


(Of course this may work well when completed all in house from one location), however for most long haul carriers, the flight is being operated out of LHR and the loadcontroller is sitting in an office in Bangkok. Cape Town, Istanbul without perhaps even knowing what the holds look like in real life!
There are different variations of Centralised Load Control:
Handling Agent- Covering one Country, or region, I don't think any are Global, Airline- normally Global, or Airline Outsourced.
If have tried not to get into these variations on a theme, because providing the staff in the Load Control Centre responsible for Semi-permanent Data Maintenance, Load Planning, Loadsheet production are fully trained, competent and checked out on each Carriers Aircraft Type the location should NOT Matter, but this also means that the one remaining eyes and ears at the Airport of Departure, the Dispatcher is adequately trained and Competent and has a good Carrier Briefing Document (either on-line, or hard copy and which is maintained with updates).

As for the Load Planners not knowing the Holds/Compartments of an Aircraft Type Belonging to a particular Carrier:
As an Airlines Systems Person , I should say it doesn't matter as a good system properly maintained will store the Hold/Compartment and Cabin Specifications by Carrier, by type, sub-type and variant.
But it does matter, as a pragmatist, the system holds these specifications as numeric data and whilst I accept it is NOT Practical for Load Planners to spend time with very Carriers Aircraft Type, I firmly believe that their on-line knowledge base should have annotated three view and perspective drawings of the Hold/Compartments for each Carrier and Type (Plus Cabin Configurations).

It is obvious from your Post that there is a major shortfall in training, competency, standards and quality assurance in the Load Control Centre you deal with. You have my sympathy and all you can do is report incidents, irregularities and if you find even a possible hint that safety was compromised then ensure you get the report as far up your organisations management totem pole as possible.

[groundhand]

Quote:
"With functions becoming increasing remote form the AIrport, the role of the Dispatcher should be becoming even more important and although 'jack of all trades' a dispatcher must be master of most of them and at least a journeryman in the rest, yet the pressure to reduce the Dispatchers Status and role, which has always been there, has (from conversations I have had over the last two years) actually begun to happen. This is happening at a time when the role and therefore the Status (and consequently Training) of Dispatchers should be enhanced."

There is the alternative view in that the role of the Dispatcher, within certain operating parameters, can be made redundant.

This systerm has worked successfully at large bases for several carriers and is a function of the CLC planning and communicating the load and any restrictions; crews self brief and the aircraft have ACARS/AIRCOM; the Ramp team leader takes responsibility for loading and communicating deviations and signing off the loading; and the passenger boarding team taking responsibility for the passenger load and any deviations and signing off the laod. All other servicing agents (catering, fuel, cleaners etc.) are contracted directly by the carrier on time related contracts.

When everyone is trained correctly and companies take responsibility for the delivery of their service the Dispatcher role becomes redundant.

I do not advocate this as the ideal, and it does not work in all environments, but the 'old' role of the Dispatcher has changed massively over the years and will, as the products technology develop, change further. One of the drivers of this is the change in aviation, the LCC's, and their operating models (no cargo, catering only at 'x' stations, limited cleaning, needs related TSU/WSU etc.) have changed the dynamics of the requirements of an aircraft turnround and some of the older skills are just not needed.

Aviation is now a very complex and varied industry. Competence of the individuals, in whatever role they are fulfilling, achieved by adequate training and experience is the safest solution.

GH

[Opssys]

Hi Groundhand

There is the alternative view in that the role of the Dispatcher, within certain operating parameters, can be made redundant.

This systerm has worked successfully at large bases for several carriers and is a function of the CLC planning and communicating the load and any restrictions; crews self brief and the aircraft have ACARS/AIRCOM; the Ramp team leader takes responsibility for loading and communicating deviations and signing off the loading; and the passenger boarding team taking responsibility for the passenger load and any deviations and signing off the laod. All other servicing agents (catering, fuel, cleaners etc.) are contracted directly by the carrier on time related contracts.

When everyone is trained correctly and companies take responsibility for the delivery of their service the Dispatcher role becomes redundant.

The concept of each Service/Function being responsible and accountable for notifying its start/completion/delay of its part of the turnaround critical path has been around a very long time. Communications and.Systems tools to put this into practise have also been around for some years. In fact the concept in a simplified form have been in operation with at least one large non-UK commuter airline for a decade and although applied to 50/70 Seaters, providing the Onboard Servicee is minimal and Holds are Baggage only doing the same thing on a larger aircraft should not be a problem, providing System/Communications Tools are implemented, and those providing services are competent..
For Operations where Service Standards are higher and Cargo is an element the Turnaround Critical Path is much more complex. However
the Ramp Team Leader replaces role I assigned to the Dispatcher in my previous post as regards Holds and Pax Services would enter deviatons as they occur affecting the cabin. So for the purposes of this thread there isn't a problem.

Whilst I have strong views on the role of the Dispatcher in Mainline Operations, I do accept these may be 'out of step' with current thinking and in certain operational environments can be reduced, or even disappear as a separate function. .

However I think the Role of the Dispatcher Now and in the Future is worthy of a thread of its own - Care to start it :)?

.

[tonker]

I wish people wouldn't put their record times for loadsheets, because now the inevitable will have to happen!

During my line training i follishly admitted to not being very good at, or like doing the manaul load sheet. I then spent most of the Bay of Biscay doing them against the clock with the chief pilot shaking his head and tutting.

[groundhand]

Opssys,

We are along the same lines but the 'no Dispatcher' model I was referring to is a legacy international (shorthaul and longhaul) operator that carries huge amounts (and a large mix of DGR) of cargo on most it's LH services. And it all works well without a designated 'Dispatcher' or, God forbid, Turnround Co-ordinator.

One of the main issues in today's industry is that there are too many Dispatch/Traffic/Ops 'managers' who do not, themselves, fully understand the fundamentals of mass and balance and have no appreciation of the more complex areas of the expertise required for certain types of aircraft. Just think of a young(ish) Traffic person who joined 6/7/8 years ago at a regional airport - most of the market is lc, the larger carriers are clc with a few 'self m&b' customers as well. The said person makes manager and then does a good job at his/her airport and then gets promoted to a large hub airport where there is a need for specialist m&b. He/she has no grounding for the expertise nor experience required to meet this requirement. The potential for a falling of standards is almost inevitable.

And it gets worse as these individuals climb their corporate ladders.

Enough moaning, back to some graft....
GH

[Nomorefreetime]

Royal Air Force Movements trademen are still taught the lot for all the whole transport fleet. Loadmasters are as well

[trident3]

Whilst external publicity campaign may be slow to start off with, the UK/CAA have formed a GHOST sub-committee (Ground Handling Operational Safety Team) whose membership comes from a range of airlines and ground handlers in order to look more deeply into the causes of loading errors and weight and balance errors for operators ex UK territory and how to eradicate the trend!!
.
This is ongoing and progressing with the help of volunteer membership from the fields of airlines and ground handlers.
.
The aim is to minimise,reduce the risk, by knowledge and training and hopefully eliminate loadsheet and misloading errors by the request for co-operation by airline "providers" for full training, qualification and refreshers by all those companies and individual employees involved in traffic and ramp duties.
No current ground UK licencing legislation exists other than the Air Navigation Orders reminder that one shouldn't "knowingly or willingly make a incorrect entry onto a loadsheet whatsover".
.
It is currently a matter for the AIRLINE to select and AUDIT the GROUND HANDLER and to provide the Ground Ops/Loading/Traffic manual material with the standards and procedures for "traffic duties" of the airlines own head offices.

The issues as discussed in these forums on PPRUNE include:
1/The use of "RUNNERS" at a/c side for co-ordination of paperwork/turns who may be basically trained but not weight and balance qualified en masse.
.
2/The use of Global CLC/CLP methods including LMCs for report back before airborne to the flight deck either by ACARS or loadsheet LMC box.
.
3/Induction training standards by ground handlers/airlines to ALL groundcrews whether they be check-in agents, loading team,traffic agencies and aircrew.
.
4/Refresher training standards and local "licencing/validation certification"
.
5/The LIRF estimated load v final load for weight and trim, accurately annointed and loadsheet/balance chart compared and adjusted to 100% final.
.
6/Passenger bay seating v row seating for trim and cabincrew control over it
.
7/Standard baggage weights v actual baggage weights v heavy baggage.
.
8/Overcoming the "fear" factor of agency employees wishing to report rogue airlines or ground handling supervisors for alleged loadsheet "adjustments" when overweight situation occurs (usually baggage weights too high at close-out)
.
9/The reluctance of Ground Handlers to report customer airlines for loading or weight and balance irregularities by use of a GSR (Ground Safety Report)
.
10/The actual knowledge to every employee of airlines/ground handler that they may report either genuine errors or deliberate "fudging of weights" scenarios to the authorities in confidence.
.
Hopefully, over the next few months, more public awareness information will be made available, so that ANY employee for ANY walk of life at the airport will be made more aware of the importance of weight and balance and correct aircraft loading, regardless of which ground services department or aircrew division you all work for.
.
Finally, the loadsheet has a better chance of being 100% accurate if the checklist is put in place before presentation to the captain that the physical confirmation by tick/yellow pen/circle/initial or any other visible means can demonstrate to the captain and give confidence to him/her that the following have been double-checked BEFORE PRESENTATION to the commaander;

REGISTRATION
DATE
DESTINATION(s)
FLIGHT NUMBER
CREW COMPLEMENT
PANTRY CODE
DOW/DOI or APS WT/INDEX
TAKE OFF FUEL/TAXI/BURN
PAX ON BOARD
DEADLOAD IN HOLDS
LOADING INSTRUCTION V LOADSHEET DISTRIBUTION
BAGGAGE WEIGHTS ACTUALS/ NOTIONAL SCHEDULE/CHARTER
PAX WEIGHTS CHARTER OR SCHEDULE OR SEASONAL ROUTING APPROVED
DEADLOAD IN HOLDS IS GOING TO SAME PLACE AS LOADSHEET SUGGESTS!!
.
I hope this gives confidence to all PPRUNE readers and contributors that there really are panels/committees that exist for the good of accurate load control and safe flying every sector as an result of these awareness campaigns.
.

[Opssys]

trident3
Well I am impressed that the CAA has done this.
Is there any web link to the work/status etc of this committee as I for one would like to follow progress.

[trident3]

The UK/CAA website is being reviewed to seek the opportunity for agents to report any "unsafe activities or concerns of loading-weight and balance" and hopefully there will be some news of the website access after 17SEP08 next meeting.
I will happily update this post as soon as it is confirmed, as the safety of aviation community relies on the positive actions and culture of all those involved, many agents currently not realising genuinely how much they can make a difference by being included and educated to a higher standard about load control/aircraft despatch/loading supervsion etc
.
Fear of employment termination for the individual agent and concern of the potential loss of an airline customer to a competitive ground handler, if the airline was reported for alleged unsafe practices or lack of training, may be the drive behind why so few reports (GSR-ASR) are ever filed, plus the agent may not have been educated by the employer into how to report an alleged incident or alleged trend. These are assumptions worth considering in all airlines and ground handlers back-yards !!.
.