Load +weight Error At Egss Today [Archive]

Maude Charlee

4th May 2007, 21:10

Whilst there will be a standardised loading for every a/c type, flight deck often issue their own specific loading instructions. It wouldn't be the first time a skipper has ordered a particular loading plan that was completely wrong, yet in trim.

I remember an Islandsflug B737-400 captain issuing a completely incorrect loading instruction because he didn't know how his holds were numbered. Result - a 1200kg misload favouring the forward hold over the rear, and only noticed by the handlers in the next destination. The airline tried to blame the handlers for that too.

It's all well and good blaming the Circus, but do you know for sure it was their fault? Us pilots may believe we are infallible, but we are a very long way from it.

Flyboy543

4th May 2007, 21:33

Interesting, at EGNX today GB airways (A320 - full) was loaded as the load plan requested, ALL the bags in rear hold. The loaders questioned this several times before they started loading with the dispatcher, Captain and GB all said yes that's fine. A/c pushed back, waited for 5 mins on taxiway then taxied ever so slowly back onto stand. Reloaded with 20 bags in front. Pushed back again, taxied to hold at end of runway, then sat there for over half an hour. Eventually took off 40 mins after being pushed for the second time.

GB handeled by Servisair at EGNX.

Flapping_Madly

4th May 2007, 21:53

I posted about this recently in SLF ( Everyone needs a laff- try this) about a Flybe BEA 146 so nose heavy 20 SLF had to walk to the rear of the aircraft before they could unfasten the tow tug.

Funny really but makes you think.:hmm:

mini

4th May 2007, 22:37

I had assumed this was obvious but it must be asked in light of this situation.

Who (job title) comes up with the initial load plan?

I assume the crew scan this vis a vis their t/o config settings etc.

Fart Master

5th May 2007, 05:27

For what reason would a skipper ask for the loading of the aircraft to be changed, doesn't the computer loadsheet system allocate the load safely, unless of course it's a manual loadsheet, but then the handling agent would distribute the load:confused:

BOAC

5th May 2007, 08:08

C of g as far aft as practical is the desired loading pattern (for fuel economy), and if 'nothing is said' one would expect a 2/3 - 1/3 baggage distribution to be the 'norm' (if there is one) to achieve a more aft cg. This assumes, of course, correct pax seating in the cabin. In my experience it is unusual for an agent in doubt NOT to ask how to load. How Ryanair cope with their 'free-seating' I do not know, but I guess for them to be less than full is unusual.:)

Mis-loading is not uncommon. I ?maybe? recall an ?Airbus? of ?Air2000? tipping onto its tail somewhere in Greece a while back. No time to 'search'.
Problems can occur if bags are already loaded (with a rearwards bias) and then a/c is boarded (badly) by agent via the rear doors and rear pax sit down first.:)

surely not

5th May 2007, 09:28

I am aware that on occassion there will be a Captain on fleet who has their own pet theories about how best to distribute the bags, and this causes confusion for the GHA as they often do not know who the Captain will be when they load plan a flight. They produce a load plan as per the airlines SOP and then the 'one off' Captain countermands this at the aircraft side.

The way we solved the problem? Have a word with the fleet Captain and ask him to have a word in the ear of the rogue Captain.

Re this latest incident, it should be easy to know whether Stansted or Manchester were wrong. If the original LIRF issued by MAN showed the bulk of the bags loaded in the fwd hold then they are at fault. If the LIRF showed the bulk of the bags loaded in the rear but the loaders ignored it and loaded them in the front then STN are at fault.

Did the crew ask for the re-load because it was out of trim, or was it in trim and safe to fly but the crew preferred it loaded differently?

sf25

5th May 2007, 09:54

.... reminds me of when being slf in a hs 748 of former vayodoot airlines India) many years ago. shortly prior to t/o all luggage was removed from forward luggage compartment to rear. was a funny sight to see passengers handing suitcases and backpacks over their heads from one seat to the next ....

old,not bold

5th May 2007, 10:22

A CL44 was being loaded in DXB years ago with gold bars; the loaders, one by one, carried 1 bar each (about 10Kgs, I think) up the forward stair and walked down the fuselage to the rear, where the bars were being distributed on the floor moving forwards, placed the bar and exited down the rear stair to get another bar.

The loading plan was that by the time the last bar was in place, the load would be evenly distributed along the whole cabin, each side of the CoG. The one-way system would be time-and-effort-efficient. We forgot to think about the interim stages of this otherwise excellent plan.

You're there already.......at the moment when the load aft of the CoG reached a critical point, a loader started walking aftwards from the front with his bar and, as he passed the CoG the nose, ever so gently, rose off the ground. The loader, now going downhill, increased speed.......so did the vertical speed of the nose.......

All the bars loaded by then, several tonnes and not yet fastened down, slid with increasing velocity to the back.

And someone had forgotten to attach the strut.

Flight Detent

5th May 2007, 10:32

We were operating around Africa, the Middle East and SE Asia in Classic B747 with AAI for some years doing manual load sheets at each and every departure.
The crew always specified the %age of load for the front and rear holds.

That's what was considered quite normal for most of my time there, I wouldn't have trusted it any other way, and still wouldn't !!

We never had any loading incidents, just a couple of times the rotate was a little 'different', but that's the case anywhere !!

Just a wee bit of trimming while accelerating thru V2 !!

Cheers FD :eek:

Maude Charlee

5th May 2007, 11:30

Mini

The flight crew won't see the loadplan prior to loading, only the final distribution, which allows them to check it against the loading indicated on the loadsheet.

Aircraft will be planned in accordance (or at least should be) with the company ground handling manual, which will specify a preferred standard loading for every a/c type operated. However, this does get varied from time to time at crew request.

BOAC

As regards Ryanair, standard baggage loading on the 800s is everything in the rear, up to something like 130 pieces of baggage (been a while so I can't remember the exact number) and the remainder in the forward hold.

As far as pax seating, depending on numbers, the first 6 rows and last 6 rows of seats will be unavailable for seating, to allow the aircraft to remain in trim with very light loads. Above a certain threashold, all seats will be available.

They also have the most ridiculously easy loadsheets to complete that I have ever seen in my life.

BOAC

5th May 2007, 11:37

MC - thanks for the 'insight' - looks very sensible to me. 130 is about the max I've ever got into 3/4.They also have the most ridiculously easy loadsheets to complete that I have ever seen in my life - aah! ....if only......................:{

kingair9

5th May 2007, 11:55

According to Murphy's law things can partly be very strange.

Had it at WAW 3 years ago that we were checked in for WAW-DUS with boarding passes for an AB 738 but arriving at the a/c found out that it was a F100. Just as the turmoil in the cabin had settled down and everybody found a free seat (about 75 pax only), the Cpt came from his cockpit and informed us that also the loading had been done in 738 style - all luggage in the rear hold.

So 75 pax had to squeeze in the front rows, leaving as many aft seats as possible free...

:ugh:

FougaMagister

5th May 2007, 12:24

Just a few thoughts on this:

1/ Due to the nature of its operation (pilgrimage charters to Lourdes, VIP/corporate charters), Air Mediterranee is an infrequent visitor to airports in the UK. That might explain some of the confusion in STN (if not in MAN)

2/ In that case, the safe thing to do for the dispatcher is to review/confirm the loading instruction with the flight crew

3/ There might be some issues in case of split loading (e.g. some airlines want destination baggage in one hold, transfer baggage in another; if much less [or more] of one category turns up than expected, the loading instruction [sometimes prepared hours before] might end up wrong)

4/ Long, thin aircraft are more loading- and trim-sensitive; e.g. A321 vs A319, B738/739 vs 733, etc.

Never been a big fan of centralised load control; loading issues are more easily (and quickly) dealt with at the gate or on station than by someone in an office 300 miles away (or more) - provided of course the local dispatcher is properly qualified and conversant with loading and M&B issues.

Regarding Ryanair, standard loading on 738s is first 160 bags in H2, then load H1, then rear holds (H3, H4). With FR charging for hold luggage, H1 is rarely loaded let alone full. PAX-wise, the Cabin Crew will indeed automatically block a number of rows depending on PAX figures. Since PAX board Ryanair flights using both front & rear steps, they usually spread out quite evenly in the cabin while choosing their seats.

Matty J

5th May 2007, 13:32

Maude Charlee

Just a quick correction on the Ryanair loading policy that you mentioned. I've just left EGSS after working as a dispatcher on Ryanair aircraft for 4yrs. The loading rule on the -800's is as follows:

If the A/C has a load of 160 Bags or less then they all go into Hold 2 in the front of the A/C.
190 Bags or less, then 160 go in Hold 2 as mentioned and 30, or remainder go into Hold 1, in the nose.
Ryanair wants a max of 190 bags in the front of its -800's, anything over 190 is loaded as above but with the remainder in the rear holds 3 & 4 (Hold 4 rarely used)

This sounds simple enough but obviously depending on the size of the bags it may not be possible to load exactly to the regulations. For example in the winter when the SZG, BGY, TMP flights etc are full of ski's, then either with a total baggage load of 190 or less you still have to use the rear holds are the ski's are too big to cram into the front with the normal luggage. The loadsheets are all manual and as a dispatcher you can play around with the loading as long as the aircraft still trims out.

I've dispatched for Easyjet as well and they are the opposite to Ryanair. All their bags go into the rear holds and anything left over has to go in the front! When FR had the Buzz -300 the load was split 50/50 and this was the same on the BAE 146 as well.

Hope thats clear enough.

Regards.

:ok:

BOAC

5th May 2007, 16:01

Well, no wonder the agents are confused! We have 2 apparent Ryanair 'experts' loading bags at opposite ends, so what hope for the GHA?

fireflybob

5th May 2007, 16:10

That said you would think in these days of technology we would have a system fitted on the a/c which displays (accurately) the actual weight (sorry mass!) and C.G. position.

When I flew the B707-336 freighter in the 1970s we had a system called STAN (cannot remember exactly what the acronym stood for - maybe Sum Total And....) which we used as a gross error check on the loadsheet. I seem to recall it was quite good when it worked. Surely by now the boffins could come up with a system to suit our times!

In trim

6th May 2007, 06:39

The critical thing is that the Load Plan and the Loadsheet agree, and are cross-checked by the Despatcher (or "turnround co-ordinator"), the load plan having been signed off by the loaders, before the aircraft is allowed to go anywhere.

Whilst the Centralised Load Control hub may of course be at fault in cases, the technology is such that it is not generally possible to produce a loadsheet which differs from the loading instructions, or a loadsheet which is illegal (out of trim / overweight).

Therefore in most cases of loading errors, it is down to communication or human error.......
a) version 1 of a Loading Instructions being used when there has been cause to re-issue a version 2.
b) Loaders getting their holds mixed up....."all in the back" becomes "all in the front" for no apparent reason (yes, I have seen that happen!)

In many cases, interaction from the crew trying to impose a "standard loading" can be dangerous as it presents the ground staff with a conflict. However, it is not uncommon for this to happen......particularly from flight deck of charter carriers who tend to have a simpler loading pattern, and are also (at many stations) closer to the load control area in that they have to do manual loadsheets. This tends to be less true of most scheduled carriers where the loading pattern tends to be more varied (2 class cabin, freight carriage, etc.), and the crews are used to leaving this activity to the groundstaff, plus there is generally no 'standard' anyway.

If the computer and all paperwork is based on a particular load distribution and a Captain asks for something different, then straight away there is the potential for a trim (and legal) discrepancy. The computer system and data would have been approved by the airline's weight and balance department (as per the IATA AHM560 process) and therefore the critical thing is ensuring all the cross-checks on the ground are in place such that the aircraft is loaded as per the sheet of paper the Despatcher delivers to the pointy-end!!

In trim.

Maude Charlee

6th May 2007, 19:15

Matty

You are indeed correct - it is all coming back to me now. Used to do both FR and EZY myself, but a while back now. Thanks for clearing that up.

BOAC

Be afraid, be very afraid. Not too much though - I took a step backwards, turned to the dark side and hide in the flight deck these days. What could possibly go wrong? :}

HZ123

7th May 2007, 10:59

Slightly aside; is it not the case on the wide body a/c that the odd tonne of calculation being out does not make a huge difference. In turn by scale this can be applied to narrow bodied a/c. My rational for this is that baggage weights (nominal) that are applied to the majority of our flts and pax weights (nominal) often bear little comparison to the actuals of today and are based on a '90's matrix. Regarding load planning Boeing wide body aircraft have in most cases 100 plus plans with most airlines using no more than 10 plans as it starts to get confusing.

llondel

7th May 2007, 12:58

freightdoggy dog

7th May 2007, 19:16

So operators therefore take the manufacturers flight envelope and restrict the front and aft limits to take into account movement of pax from the extreme ends of the arms. But you can't always take into account a person getting Kilograms and Pounds mixed up Dooh!
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f169/freightdoggydog/electraonarse12ejpg1.jpg

corfiotpilot

8th May 2007, 16:48

@ Boac,
""How Ryanair cope with their 'free-seating' I do not know, but I guess for them to be less than full is unusual.:) ""

Seeing you said this, I thought, I was once on a flight to Dublin with RYR, and the flight time was a bad one! Early ... early morning, hardly anyone on, but there was a large group (30 or so) congregated together, surely this didnt help the C.O.G. of the 737! :)
Now this was some time back, has this free seating been addressed since then?
Thanks
Mixales

Dropline

8th May 2007, 18:36

What exactly happened with the Air Med? If it was loaded differently to the loading instructions sent by Central Load Control then the Dispatcher is to blame as they are responsible for ensuring the a/c is loaded as per the instructions. CLC will send a loadsheet based on their instructions unless advised otherwise. If the crew simply didn't like the way the a/c was being loaded (and with so much weight in the front who can blame them) then CLC are at fault for such a bad trim.

Either way CLC is probably a factor here. When a Servisair station goes over to CLC its experienced weight and balance trained Dispatchers are gradually replaced by (cheaper) "ramp rats" with far less knowledge of the job. Dispatchers leave because they find no longer having any control over the w&b of an aircraft erodes what (little) authority they have left. Unfortunately Servisair seems to have no respect for (or understanding of) the role of a Dispatcher.

It wouldn't be so bad if CLC actually knew what they were doing, but many of them have very little aviation experience and have just been given a computer training course and list of standard loading instructions to follow! (see the Load Controller Job thread in the Flight Ops Crewing and Dispatch Forum to see how they are recruited!) Some of these so called Load Controllers have insufficient knowledge of w&b or the a/c turnaround and loading process, and while they can get away with it on a (full!) charter flight, give them a wide bodied/containerised a/c or a scheduled flight with cargo and mail and 2 classes of pax and no standard load plan (or say, an Air Mediterranee) and they have no idea how to trim it properly. This combination of inexperienced Load Control and ramp rat will inevitably lead to situations like the Air Med, which unfortunately are becoming more common than Servisair would ever dare to admit!

LGW went to CLC in February and since then its Dispatchers (many with over 10 years experience) have repeatedly raised their concerns at the loadsheet and trim errors constantly being made by CLC. For the most part these errors have so far (thankfully) been rectified by the Dispatcher before pushback. It seems that current management puts cost cutting higher up the list of priorities than safety as our concerns are falling on deaf ears. Unless a flight is actually delayed by CLC's incompetence, no-one seems to care!

j_davey

8th May 2007, 22:27

If it's that critical, just having the mobile freight moving around the cabin could have a significant effect, at least on a widebody. Ten people at the back of a 747 either using or waiting for the toilets is not uncommon at times, although that's less common on a smaller aircraft with less space and less toilets.

not so much of an issue if you are well within limits to begin with, after all the trim is exactly that, a trim setting for takeoff! in flight and landing are transient maneuvers and therefore do not have any standard trim settings.

taking off(and hopefully landing) is performed with all pax in their assigned seats.

In trim

11th May 2007, 05:38

Free-seating actually helps avoid trim problems rather than causing more. There are a number of key points when comparing free-seating to allocated from a trim point of view:

1. The trim envelope will be 'narrowed' as a result of a free-seating policy, therefore giving a better margin for error than an allocated seating operation.

2. Passengers will generally tend to spread themselves reasonably well through the cabin on a free-seating operation.

3. It is immediataely clear visually if there is a major imbalance of pax spread in the cabin, whereas you can't tell if pax have moved on an allocated seating flight......unless you cross-check all the seat allocations.

4. Most/many loadsheet systems do not account for the trim difference due to sex or adult/child differences. On a 2-class operation, the front-end is more likely to be a heavy Adults/males mix, with a greater proportion of children at the rear of the cabin.....but the loadsheet is very likely based on "15 in Bay A and 15 bay C" having a very similar trim affect. Single-class / free-seating helps eliminate this, as Males/Females/Children will probably have an even spread throughout the cabin.

Free-seating has it's problems, and may not be popular from a consumer perspective, but for trim purposes I believe it has a number of safety advantages and is less prone to gross error.

In trim

TotalBeginner

13th May 2007, 14:03

I thought that Aviance were handling Air Med at EGSS?

brooker100

14th May 2007, 08:54

Any airline that lets Aviance mess with their M&B must be mad! Most flight dispatchers out their do not get enough training in this area, it's ok if done on computer but I've seen some shocking stuff when the manual M&B sheet has to be dusted off due to a computer fault.

Aviance handled Asiana cargo at EGSS (not sure if they still do) M&B training was minimal for the 747-4 cargo, yet I've seen captains just glance at load sheets and sign their life away, and this was all manual, no computers. Wide bodied cargo can get complicated when you chuck in a full load with some haz mat.

This is not aimed at all flight dispatchers, as I know some have had good training, but for Joe Bloggs just joining the dispatch department from baggage being trained by someone who just has a basic knowledge of M&B, watch out on the flight deck. :=

sam dilly

14th May 2007, 15:21

Yes its true Aviance have taken over the Air Med contract as from the
Servisair fiasco BUT Today what did Aviance do to Air Med.?
answer = sent a whole load of bags back from STN on a ferry flight to somewhere in France !
plane came back an hour later !just to unload the bags !
Well done Air Med for being so cooperative !:{

TotalBeginner

14th May 2007, 22:06

When I worked for KLM there was no such thing as a dispatcher. Instead they were called Limas (short for load-controller). The Lima would be in charge of the turn-around and load planning. The loading instructions and load-sheet were prepared at the departure gate using CODECO and it worked very well. They were also responsible for all post-departure messages (LDM MVT PSM etc... )

744rules

15th May 2007, 14:54

In my opinion it doesn't matter if you work manually, computerised (whatever system), CLC or not. It's all a matter of communication. If there is any (significant) difference between planned situation vss actual situation, it should be reported asap to the responsible for the final data so corrective action can be taken before departure.
I work in CLC myself, and I can assure there is a big difference in all spoke stations. Some are able to report all loading details std minus 10min, others report sometimes when a/c standing by at holding point.

Smudger

15th May 2007, 19:14

Happens all the time. I am a captain working out of a major UK airport flying a fairly large passenger jet. On stand couple of weeks ago the agent arrived on the flight deck with 5 minutes to go to departure and handed me a computer loadsheet for another airframe. You just have to assume that you are the only one who has some idea of reality sometimes. This is what we are paid for I guess.

Varipitch

12th Jun 2007, 10:19

Canadair never designed a rear support strut for the 44-even for the J model it was never deemed necessary-but Cargolux managed to 'point one to the heaven' on the ground at Findel-so did Affretair-TMAC, and probably most infamous of all-Transglobe on one of the very first pax flights to Niagra Falls.
TMAC had a squadron of goats come flying out the back of a D model at 30mph....

Bluejay

12th Jun 2007, 12:17

Wow there seems to be a rather large anti CLC theme in this forum.

I am a recently recruited CLC Hub Controller, I have completed a 6 week training course plus shadowing. My licence covers me for All bulk/loose loaded narrow body aircraft as well as 747's and 777's. I will hopefully in the near future be attending a course to have 767's and containerised Airbusses added to my licence.

All of my colleagues who have been involved in the set up of CLC are from across the airline with all sorts of experience, some of us have sound experience from more than one department, if I remember correctly we had - Customer Service Experience, Flight Control, Cabin Crew, Loading, Cargo, Operations and a few other departments that I can't recall.

In my albeit limited experience there have been a number of occaisions where various stations will pay little or no attention to the loadplan. We even get Flight Deck who think they can over rule the load plan without checking the consequences.

For example - Boeing 737-800 loadplan was C1 - 20 Bags, 2 - 120 Bags and the rest in 3. Firstly the TRC called to query it - he was told quite clearly that there was nothing wrong with the trim (he seemed to think it was nose heavy - in actual fact it was trimming closer to the tail than the nose). Anyway off he went and 10 mins later called again saying the Captain isn't happy with the Loadplan and he wants 140 bags in 3 and the rest in 2. The CLC Controller moved the bags and warned the TRC that the aircraft was now trimming at the tail with only 0.8 away from limits. TRC (sounding rather worried now) tried to back track and readjust but he was told that if thats what the Capt wants then thats what he gets!! Next thing the Fuel message came through and was put into the system - BINGO the a/c was well out of trim to the extent that approx 40 bags had to be moved from 3 to 2. Of course the a/c was significantly delayed whils bags redistributed, Capt not happy and said he was going to write a report, he was told that if it was done his way then he wouldn't have gone anywhere! Funnily enough no report ever materialised - I wander if he saw the error of his ways!

Anyway, for those who are anti CLC, please don't jump to conclusions and blame CLC out right. Yes it may be a new department and yes mistakes will be made but between us we have lots of aviation experience in different fields and we are guided by some very experienced people.

ISO100

12th Jun 2007, 14:02

I worked as Dispatcher (Load Control Clerk) for Servisair at MAN a long, long time ago before computer networks and centralised anything.

We had a simple system, before we loaded the aircraft we asked the captain after giving him his passenger / baggage weights and numbers how he would like to have his bags loaded. We used a pen and paper, no huge maths involved and it all worked out fine. Everything was done there and then and everyone knew what was happening.

I left aviation a long time ago and now work in Computer Networking and often see the over application of the technology in the name of efficiency.

No doubt this new system saves money for someone some where and makes the IT guys important.

Maude Charlee

12th Jun 2007, 21:52

So we can expect CLC to start using the actual weights and indices for the correct a/c and the figures passed by the crews then? :hmm:

Bluejay

13th Jun 2007, 08:14

Sorry not sure I understand!

Basic Weight and Index is passed by the TRC/TRM/Dispatcher and this should be displayed on a weight statement on board the aircraft.

Fuel Figures are passed by Crew to TRC/TRm etc and passed to CLC who enter into the system the figures passed.

Weights for bags and pax are authorised weights

Cargo and Mail is actual weight as passed

And so on and so forth, if you are implying that we make up weights in CLC then I am sorry you are mistaken.

FougaMagister

13th Jun 2007, 11:29

Bluejay - you're assuming that everything gets done via CLC. Where I work (between the M6 and the M42 ;) ), the only loadsheets produced through CLC are KLM 737s (by KLM CLC in AMS) and SAS, plus City Airline (by SAS Load Control in BKK). The rest is planned on site and produced at the gate. It works well - provided you have skilled load planners (we do).

2/ Not all airlines use standards weights for baggage. Some (and the CAA would like more) use actual bag weights (since these can turn out to be very different depending on the route).

3/ When faced with an "unusual" flight (i.e, an airline that rarely visits), I always double-check with the Flight Crew if they are happy with the planned loading before we start. If the CPT then decides to amend the Load Plan to his/her liking and second-guess us, that's fine provided he/she is willing to take the delay in case the a/c ends up out of trim.

And there is no way he/she will be able to send a report to the airline before me! The delay will be down to "CPT's request". Full stop.

Seeing it from both sides of the fence these days, I confirm that dispatch quality varies a lot between stations - hence some crews' preference to plan loading their way. Still, I believe the best a crew can do on a turnaround is to interfere as little as possible.

Cheers :cool: