It looks like in this case, history part at least repeated itself, which traditionally in many cases allow the accident to take place.
For the sake of a few dollars, someone decided that they knew better and there were not, as would be the norm two laptops used as a cross check. Compiling figures on two units, appears to be more diligent that using one, than having the calculations checked on one. Then there was the problem of stress caused by the pre flight flight deck conferances, and then it slipped past the crew that the AUW was far too low.
It is very apparent that the calculations were wrong and it was not picked by checking. However there must have been other factors that should have been revealed.
Most pilots, engineers and Loadmasters, and at least when I served, the loadmaster and engineer would calculate what the AUW would be, at the least the co pilot but usually the person doing the take off would do the card too, if they all when compared by the engineer, did not agree then the start up was not commenced until there was agreement.
In any case the figures produced did not get challenged, but I fail to see how with the load sheet, included the fuel, cargo a SLF did not come up to the gross weight, then again something was wrong. After all you know the pax, you know the cargo, you know the fuel that is required, and you know the empty weight of the airlane, in other words an experienced crew should have a very good idea what the AUW would be.
I fail to understand with an airplane about to conduct a very long flight, that they could accept that the airplane was lighter than it was. 100 tons is a lot to loose and bells should have been ringing.
Maybe the answer partly is not allow people into the flight deck, until such time as the important take off factors have been checked. I mean we are not talking about big time here, but never the less it is proberly the most important check before flight.
The other thing is if there had been two laptops used, the error would have been revealed, sounds like some penny pinching there.
In conclusion I feel that even though they made a mistake, the crew did an amazing airman ship show in recovering the situation. Looks to me that the mangement were looking for someone to take the wrap, and not have the finger pointed at them. Now their actions show that they too have responsibilty.
Instead of hanging the pilots out to dry, management should have immediately looked at all the facts, and then decided what action they should take. by them not waiting until the investigation to reveal the total situation.
The crew cocked up, but did a great recovery job, management cocked up too, but just pointed the finger, the safety officer he condoned the use of cheap and non recogmended proceedures, so really it is the comapny who was partly to blaim.
In the pilots being made to take the blame, is the easy way out, and if the incident became so bad that it was an accident, and they and many others had died, I am sure the company at least would have said pilot error.
The company needs to stand up and accept that they too played a major part, the pilots could have had action taken against them. But to dismiss them with all the associated problems that will cause, clearly indicates that management is remote from the real world. A bit choping off a finger because it has a scratch.
I for one believe that both pilots today, are and would be better pilots because of this matter. I for one would travel with them, and I suspect that if some the factors had not existed, this incident would not have occurred.
Regards
Col