Acceptance of Loadsheet

[rammel]

The other day a crew did not accept the loadsheet because it was only 2 units in from the tail. Now I understand that the Captain is quite allowed to do this, but everything was loaded correctly it was only tail heavy.

Would there be any particular reason for this eg: potential tailstrike is the only reason I could think of, or are the crew being overly cautious.

The airline in question does prefer a tail heavy trim and there preferred trim is not much further forward of where it was trimming at.

Also speaking to others at work they have also been questioned about being tail heavy from various different crews from the same region as the crew in question.

Is this a normal question to be asked from crews if the aircraft is loaded correctly and in trim?

Look forward to your replies.

Rammel

[Old Smokey]

ramme,

It is absolutely true that the Captain does not have to accept anything he or she considers unsafe, e.g. the fuel load specified on the Computerised Flight Plan. I would think, however (in the absence of any other mitigating information), that the Captain would have little justification to put forward to the Chief Pilot in a tea and bikkies session subsequent to the occasion that you describe.

Few of us find it desirable to fly with a well aft C of G, but, as I see it, if the aircraft was within it's Weight and Balance limits, however undesirable they may be, and there is little justification for the stand taken by him / her. There is a quite reasonable buffer forward and aft of the specified C of G limits, and a flight right at the Fwd or Aft limit should be perfectly manageable with a comfortable safety margin.

"Desirable" is a comfort factor, not a safety factor.

Old Smokey

[Piltdown Man]

If it's in it's in! However, there may be reasons for having an aft C of G (better range and performance) or a more forward one (ground handling issues due snow or wind) - but if it's thrown back at you with no reason, then I'd suggest he load the aircraft himself. Then he can do his own loadsheet as well. Also remember the reason for the delay - Bionic Engineering: There's an arse grafted into left hand seat.

For myself, if I want specific loading, I'll ask for it well in advance and give the reason. If not, I'll take anything that falls inside the envelope.

[JackOffallTrades]

Both Vne-2kts and Vs+2kts are within the aircrafts envelope but we dont deliberately fly there on a commercial flight.

If said captain was training he may not wish to inflict a potential tailstrike hazard on his/her trainee for example.

There may be many reasons for this. Not least inaccuracy of the load sheet. If the sheet is only accurate to the extent of the information on it (most use standard weights for pax and bags etc..) you can not be 100% sure that you are in the envelope, especially when you are that close to the edge.

If he had any doubts I think he did the right thing.

[john_tullamarine]

A well-designed loadsheet will have in-built protection against usage errors, eg, zone loading, assumed weights, LMCs, completion accuracy, and so forth. Clearly, it is appropriate that crews have sufficient training information to give confidence in this regard.

Unless

(a) the operation requires some further CG constraint and, given that the certification design standards cover reasonable operational requirements, this ought not to be a usual circumstance, or

(b) there is a reasonable suspicion of error - eg an on board W&B system showing an "error" deviation from "normal",

I suggest that a captain would need reasonably strong alternative grounds to reject the loading proposed by ground personnel.

In the world of commercial reality, a capricious rejection probably would create tea and bikkies discussions ...

[suppie]

hey a captain can always refuse a loadsheet or how the a/c is loaded....but then the captain will have to make his own loadsheet and will get a fat delay code 65:cool:

[GlueBall]

If this captain, in fact, had refused to accept and to fly a legally loaded airplane...he would have been put on an unpaid vacation at my outfit.

Needless to say, captain's authority has limitations, especially on the ground. Loading an airplane according to individualized CG preferences is outside the scope of the captain's authority...unless the captain is also the owner of the airline.

:{

[Rainboe]

http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/Stability/c_of_g_envelope.htm

He might have been concerned that there was no latitude for load shifting/people sitting too far back. He might have been aware of a recent incident involving this type going into an uncontrollable climb? Load shifting is always a possibility, and if the cg is aft, it might be enough to compromise safety or produce unpleasant handling characteristics. Personal preference- he's the one that flies it, not you! You might say that he should have warned you, but he might answer that he had every right to expect that you would load towards the ideal region more towards the forward limit. Why balance on a knife edge unnecessarily?

[411A]

Quite right, Rainboe, the Commander may well have requested a more forward loading long beforehand, and been surprised at the result.
In this case, he has every right to insist it be changed, whether the ground crew like it or not.:ok:

Now, if the aircraft was in MAN, and MAN Handling do the work, it takes very little effort to sort the load out...they just bring in more crow bars.:{

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Well, since it's the flyboys and girls who have to strap the thing to their backside and go aviating, I suppose it's only fair they have a say in this area too. I've never had a LS questioned when flying as a loadie, however dodgy it might have been. Presumeably strapping my behind to the same piece of aluminium adds a bit of confidence.

I've had situations where a skipper has asked me to load the aircraft, if at all possible, aiming at a nose/tail/neutral trim setting - and that's fair enough too. I've also had a situation, when everything was loaded and the cockpit had had the LS for a good 30 minutes, the skipper decides he doesn't fancy the trim (was rather nose heavy but within limits). It was a cargo flight and rectifying the trim to suit his preference would entail a 40 minute delay. However, as a professional one respects the other players and I calmy told him that reloading and a 40 minute delay was the only available solution. He then grumbled and signed.

Then there was the time I got a hand made LS back from the cockpit after departure (airline had not approved our computerised W&B program and had to do a manual) with a little note saying something along the lines of "please note fwd limit this a/c is 12.9%" - I had trimmed the aircraft at 12.7 or something like that. "Oh dear" I thought, better get a new one done then. Looked out the window to see the aircraft rotate off the runway at that very moment. Then again, Kaptain B. was quite a character :ok: Now he's flying SLF around for a respectable carrier and has straightened himself out :E

Bottom line? It's their arse on the line and if they're not happy, neither am I. Delay codes can be managed and unless the skipper is a nutcase, which is very rarely the case, we'll agree on a delay code that's mutually beneficial (i.e. blame someone else - usually ATC).

[JackOffallTrades]

Exactly.

If the tail heavy aircraft strikes the tail on take-off who gets the blame??

Its not the bag loaders or the dispatcher is it who have to answer to the aaib?


Who is first on the scene of the crash if the aircraft is loaded incorrectly?

[rammel]

Thanks for the many replies.

I'm quite happy that the captain is in charge and that he has the final say. All though on this flight there were reason for it being so tail heavy, which would have been explained to the captain if he had asked. The aircraft was a MD11 that was full of cargo pallets fwd which were not too heavy and full at the back of cgo and bags of which the cgo was really heavy.

The captain never spoke to me just told the airline rep that he did not want the trim so tail heavy and this was right on departure time.

The solution to this was to just off load the last 2 cgo units and that made him happy.

I do not try to load close to the limits but sometimes you can not avoid it. As it was a client airline of ours I did not make too much of fuss but I did make sure that the airline rep and our people knew that it was not my delay.

Rammel

[FougaMagister]

I do agree that it's their a**es on the line, but try to get a different trim on a typical 25-minutes low-cost 737/Dash8 turnaround! Not easy if PAX are already boarded and luggage loaded by the time you bring your loadsheet to the CPT. Only alternative then: reseat PAX (yes, you can expect grumbling).

A while ago we received a MVT message for an I/B Dash8 which explained its T/O delay as "CPT requested perfect trim". As I was due to arrive that very flight and turn it around, I made sure that I could come out with an acceptable trim on the O/B!

I would never question the CPT's right to request another trim, but I would make sure that the reason for the dealy is mentioned on the Flight Info Sheet and that the delay is 65, NOT 32!

Cheers :cool:

[Rainboe]

I seem to recall many many years ago a cargo DC8 went into an uncontrollable climb/stall on take-off at ANC due to load shift. If this was a specialist cargo operation, the crew may be more attuned to the perils of aft loading than you realise. Load shifting is not rare, and it is going to go backwards- if you are really close to the aft limit it's not going to take a lot to have an unflyable aeroplane on your hands! Another incident recently was a B1900 in the US doing the same. Inbetween there have been many many accidents like this. I saw a picture yesterday of the MD11 on its tail- aeroplanes don't like aft cgs though they may save a miniscule amount of fuel.

[john_tullamarine]

Rainboe,

Any significant movement of payload can cause undesirable flight characteristics and loss of the aircraft. Indeed, most of us can cite numerous examples of such instances of pilot excitement.

However, you are confusing two issues ..

(a) loading system trim

(b) load restraint

If the load restraint fails and the load ends up unrestrained .. it really doesn't matter where the trim started ... I seem to recall that John Cunningham was credited with a well-known statement relating to Comet climb angles which is jocularly pertinent to your observation ....

So far as the trim is concerned, if the normal errors are addressed and contained, then provided the TC envelope is respected, the aircraft's characteristics ought to be acceptable. However, there is certainly no reason why the operating crew might not request a particular style of loading if the company's protocols give the crew that level of detail control.

[Rainboe]

The way I see it, wherever the trim is, a load shift can make you unflyable. If the trim starts very close to the rear limit, and on top of that you have people moving themselves backwards and a load shift, you may be driven to that state that much more easily?

[john_tullamarine]

You're being unnecessarily conservative.

(a) loss of baggage/freight restraint is out of left field and independent of loading trim philosophies. It's not going to matter one iota where the load started if it moves unrestrained.

(b) movement of crew and pax is normally addressed in the design of the trimsheet and operator training in load control procedures and ought not to be a problem.

[Piltdown Man]

Chaps - Lets get back to basics. A loadsheet is designed to show where things are loaded and how heavy they are. This will affect how the aircraft flies. However, the aircraft manufacturers and the certification authorities know that we don't live in a perfect world. Therefore, we have loading limits which allow for a "reasonable" amount of slack - heavy aircraft (if using average fleet weights), non-standard passengers (in both body and luggage) and the SLF not sitting where it is meant to and let's not forget the cabin crew (some of whom are not standard weights!) who move around with really heavy carts during flight. ALL of this is taken into account.

However, if the Captain decides that standard weights are not acceptable, then actual weights have to be used. This may happen say, for example, when moving a plane full of Sumo wrestlers or you find you are taking passengers to a dumbell collecting conference! Or, as I have said earlier, you may want a non-standard C of G for operational reasons. But these things don't happen (generally) because there is an "R" in the month. You know in advance and then, together with the Dispatcher, we load the aircraft in an acceptable way to achieve the desired outcome.

So, going back to an earlier post - if it's in it's OK. Deciding on a "whim" to have different, non-standard loading is like saying "Let's ignore SOP's today" - Muppet territory!