Catering mass on multiple legs

[coldnorth]

Let's say a European 737 is scheduled for -four- sectors with catering uplift only on the first leg. A gradual reduction of the catering mass, and corresponding CG movement, will occur as the day progresses.

Is there a legal requirement to update the Dry Operating Mass with actual catering on every sector, or can standard (catering) configurations be used; even on multiple sectors?

I've looked through CAT.POL.MBA, but none the wiser.

[esreverlluf]

I wouldn't have thought so, as your numbers will be on the conservative side.

Discalimer - I'm not overly familiar with European regs.

[B2N2]

Previous company I worked for ( non-European) had an electronic weight and balance program where you could select 'regular' catering or 'light' catering.
Don't hold my feet to the fire but I'm thinking it was 3000 lbs and 1500 lbs.

[coldnorth]

Thanks, gents.

esreverlluf; not sure what you mean by "conservative side." If i carry 800kg in the aft galley on flight one, of which 300kg ends up in the trash, toilets or stomachs before the the next, this will cause a significant CG shift?

If I've included 800kg pantry at station arm on flight one and inside the operational envelope, then surely physically removing any or all of that weight on the subsequent leg without accounting for the change could leave me well outside the envelope?

[Piltdown Man]

What sort of loadsheet do you have? With a paper loadsheet you can adjust it to reflect whatever you think it should be but things are a little harder with a computer loadsheet. But really, what sort of weight shift and reduction are we talking about? Is is worth it?

[FlyingStone]

I think it would be too complicated for too little benefit. The DOM with topped up catering is on the safe side (weight-wise) and I very much doubt the reduction in catering through the sectors would create any issue balance-wise.

[john_tullamarine]

A relatively simple matter to adjust the calcs to suit, if one is willing and wanting to do so.

However, a greater problem is health and safety .. I recall, with some relief shaking of the head, a 727 multi sector duty starting off with meals for the later sectors.

Most fortunately, and a tad unusually, the girls brought up the first of the crew meals prior to feeding the folks down back. The F/E was first cab off the rank and went uncharacteristically quiet for a bit when he opened his meal pack. It was only a few seconds before both of us in the front caught a subtle whiff of what caused the F/E's reflection.

A near panic call to the cabin prevented any meals being distributed to the paying folks. An interesting discussion ensued with the base catering manager when we got back to the originating port .. by which stage the whole lot was a fetid, bubbling mess.

[coldnorth]

Thanks, Gents.

We are using an electronic mass & balance computer, which has default catering configurations for 'normal' and 'nil.'

Because one of the aircraft is a DHC-8 400, with a straight wing and fairly long arm to the aft galley, there are significant index shifts when comparing a full with a depleted galley. (6.5 index units shift, with an operational envelope protection of 3.0 units)

We have several solutions on hand, including an further operational envelope restriction or more catering configurations (FULL / HALF / EMPTY).

Appreciate the inputs.

[john_tullamarine]

We have several solutions on hand

Further curtailment is counterproductive re revenue. Surely one can modify the loading system to provide whatever level of detail is desired ?

[Amadis of Gaul]

Originally Posted by coldnorth

Thanks, gents.

esreverlluf; not sure what you mean by "conservative side." If i carry 800kg in the aft galley on one, of which 300kg ends up in the trash, toilets or stomachs before the the next, this will cause a significant CG shift?

I doubt it, not least because I have a hunch this has been thought of before.

As an aside, 800kg (nearly 2,000lbs), especially in only one galley, sounds like an awful lot of catering for a 737, even for 4 legs.