Crab stated this......
If you sign for the aircraft and spank it in following a performance chart that the mass of the aircraft exceeds - whether it is an engineering snafu or just not checking the C of G and Mass properly - it's still going to be the pilots fault.
Mark Six told us this.....
The original aircraft were then re-weighed, and subsequently found to be approx. 200kg heavier than the aircraft empty weight recorded in their respective RFM's. Nothing to do with incorrect sums or equipment not being counted, so no matter how diligent you might be in checking your paperwork before flight you would not have detected the error. I don't recall exactly how the original incorrect empty weights in the W & B section of the RFM occurred, but I believe they were there when CHC Oz took delivery.
Crab also told us he has challenged "questionable" W and B Data in the past.
So, Crab young Lad, please do explain exactly why you would "blame" a pilot for a 200 kg error in the W&B data used when it comes directly from the RFM for that particular aircraft he is flying that day and had done what Mark Six points out?
We are talking about a two and a half percent error....that is not very much.
The only two aircraft on the Operation had similar errors and similar weights per their RFM's.
You really think it was the Pilot's fault do you?
Explain please....just how was a Pilot on that Operation supposed to determine there was a problem?
Please do not try to tell me they should have known from the performance (or lack of.....) felt each time they flew the machines....as that Dog won't hunt!