Originally Posted by
Australopithecus
The actual situation reflects the general state of precision in the every day world. Some flights depart lighter/some depart heavier than computed. Almost none depart at the exact figure. Does 1% or 2% matter? Likely not. Maybe 1 or 2% on climb ratios.
About 25 years ago I flew a MEL-SYD sector in a 737-400. The aircraft flew sluggishly. I voiced my displeasure to the F/O who then made a Federal case out of it with ops. The load was weighed on arrival and found to be 4400+ kgs over. Reports filed. War dances danced. Threats issued, loaders tasered. Nothing else was ever heard. Tell me again about strict liability.
You make my point for me. The regulatory regime is a myriad of strict liability offences, all justified on the basis of a safety imperative. Compliance with the W&B envelope is one of them. Usually exceedances of W&B envelopes will precipitate strident claims of ‘test pilot territory’ and other dire consequences. I’m sure there’ll be something about W&B in PPL, CPL and ATPL training and testing.
But in the real world, day in day out, strict liability offences are committed with no consequences. As I’ve said, in this case I predict that Q, ATSB and CASA will come to the conclusion that there was no risk to safety.
So think about that: A strict liability offence provision, justified by the regulator on the ground of safety, is contravened but contravention is found by the regulator not to have caused any safety risk. It makes perfect (non)sense.