Thanks WNE, looks like the pilot was on the ball during the incident but was apathetic to the CG conditions prior to the flight (attempt). This is fairly typical of GA ops where most PPLs assume that the aircraft is built to operate under any condition it is loaded under. Wgt/bal awareness should be imposed rather than suggested IMO.
Stud3, some very useful info, many thanks.
From your post; can I assume that specific wgt/bal calcs are not completed for each flight?
Some observations regarding LCA 733 ops;
The aircraft was designed and built with maximum ustilisation and ease of balance conditions in mind. That is to say that with a maximum cabin load, both holds could be used without causing extreme CG locations. However, the assumption was that part of the forward cabin would be business class with either bigger seat pitch, wider seats and/or typically less passenger volume. So when lo-cost airlines pack em in at the front just as many others do at the back, and the fact that the high density seating will effectively produce more pax forwrd of the CG postion than behind it, the policy of filling the rear cargo hold first makes sense.
Compare this with an MD87 where the front hold is virtually unuseable when the cabin is full despite there being weight available below MTOW, even if hold 4 has max weight.
I'm just wondering whether there are any procedures in place to prevent the 1 in a 1000 event where most of the pax sit in the back with lots of small but heavy bags in the rear hold? Or, at least some way of advising the pilots that they have an aircraft with the CG at the rear limit.
The 733 is a great aircraft and can take a lot of abuse wrt wgt/bal, but that is hardly an excuse to become complacent IMO.