PDA

View Full Version : Tiger Loads Bags onto wrong flights


aviator's_anonymous
1st Nov 2009, 10:01
Heard off the grapevine that bags for two TT flights leaving Adelaide were put on the wrong flights... apparently all bags going to Melbourne were loaded onto the Gold coast flight, and the bags for Gold coast were loaded onto the Melbourne flight... does that seem possible? If so, i feel sorry for the passengers and the staff that have to put up with them when they all get to their destination!

Worrals in the wilds
1st Nov 2009, 10:34
I've witnessed the same :mad: up twice, by two different airlines (one LCC and one full service carrier). Unfortunately it can and does happen occasionally, I believe it caused substantial load control related issues on one of those occasions as the aircraft was much lighter than planned for.

my oleo is extended
1st Nov 2009, 10:37
Interesting post by 'aviator's_anonymous'.

Heard off the grapevine that bags for two TT flights leaving Adelaide were put on the wrong flights... apparently all bags going to Melbourne were loaded onto the Gold coast flight, and the bags for Gold coast were loaded onto the Melbourne flight... does that seem possible?

Yes.The chance of this happenning is quite sadly highly possible.If it did occur, then obviously the poor old pax will be inconvenienced. And this has happenned on many occasions before that incorrect bags have been loaded onto the wrong aircraft. But that is the least import issue here if any truth exists in the story.
My concerns would be with the following ?

How and why did the mistake occur ?
Has the incident been reported to the ATSB ?
What was notated on the final LIR, and who and how many people signed it off as being correct ?
As a result of the incorrect loading, did the Cof G of either aircraft shift to a point that aerodynamics may have been adversely compromised during all phases of flight ?
Has Tiger launched an internal safety investigation of their own ?There are a myriad more questions that could be added to the list, but if there is any truth in this threads posting, then there seems to be an evident emerging trend in dangerous incidents occurring nationally within Australia on a frightful regular basis .

my oleo is extended
1st Nov 2009, 10:46
'Worrals' I agree that such an incident would not be the first and at this rate wont be the last in Australia. Sadly any attention or focus within an airline ends to center on the Drivers upfront and very little else.
The reality is that this sort of incident will one day result in a passenger jet not getting off the ground and ploughing into a residential estate, airport infrastructure or an adjacent ocean to an airport. The risk of a stall or aircraft entering an undesired state also should be added to the list.

To put it bluntly, I dont know how the ATSB is keeping up with the investigations of these sort of occurences, surely they must be recruiting of late so they can get through the ever increasing workload?

The safety standards of aviation within Australia is slipping by the week. We all know whats next around the corner dont we ?

Mr. Hat
1st Nov 2009, 11:08
Remember oleo, high viz vests, asic cards, random drug testing and nail clippers. This is what safety's all about.

Cutting to the core of safety issues on a daily basis.

gutso-blundo
1st Nov 2009, 11:24
In Tiger's case, loading bags on the wrong flight probably won't put the aircraft outside CofG limits as everything is loaded into the back anyway. It might make rotation interesting if the stab is set in the wrong position for the weight though...

Metro man
1st Nov 2009, 11:34
I remember a case in a previous employer where all the freight was loaded correctly in the right aircraft for its destination. The pilot managed to take another aircraft by mistake and only noticed after landing that the destination labels didn't correspond to where he was.

Happens sometimes.:O

BTW It wasn't me.

pilotshorvath
1st Nov 2009, 12:35
The reality is that this sort of incident will one day result in a passenger jet not getting off the ground and ploughing into a residential estate, airport infrastructure or an adjacent ocean to an airport. The risk of a stall or aircraft entering an undesired state also should be added to the list.


Oh, please spare us the drama!:=

I could be wrong, and if I am, I'm more than happy to be corrected.:).....but:

As far as I know, all Load Instruction Reports (LIR's) are made based on the actual load, as supervised by the Load Controller. As Worrals mentioned, if incorrect bags are loaded, the LIR could read significantly different to the planned load, but it will always represent the actual load on the aircraft.

Because the LIR and W&B sheet are created at the same time by the person actually supervising the loading of the aircraft, the W&B sheet will always contain the actual LIR information, and as such, the W&B sheet will always represent the actual load.

Could any ground crew out there confirm/deny this summary?! :confused:

The reality is that this sort of incident will one day result in a passenger jet not getting off the ground and ploughing into a residential estate, airport infrastructure or an adjacent ocean to an airport. The risk of a stall or aircraft entering an undesired state also should be added to the list.


Top points for drama Mr. Oleo, but unlikely to happen due to mis-loading as suggested. :hmm::=

But let's play hypotheticals for a bit: Even IF an aircraft was loaded with more cargo than planned, I doubt that it would cause it to be "unable to get of the ground and plough into the houses at the end of runway". The recent incident in Melbourne with Emirates showed that even an aircraft with a 100 tonne discrepancy can get off the ground.

And I doubt that the difference between MEL and OOL bags will ever be close to 100 Tonnes!

(If 200 people had 30kg of bags each, and 'the other' flight had NO planned bags at all, we're talking about 6 tonnes difference)

Six tonnes.... and that's assuming the first flight was planned with NO bags.

-----

But like is said, this is based on my experience/what I have seen. I am happy to be shown/proven otherwise. :ok:

Kangaroo Court
1st Nov 2009, 13:37
This happened at an airline I worked at, and there was quite a discrepancy in baggage. The crew said they didn't notice. Bags went one way with an almost empty flight. Passengers went the other way with almost no baggage. You'd think the people looking at the loading would have questioned why, but as you know, they don't!

LeadSled
1st Nov 2009, 15:04
Folks,
I can remember one better than this, back in Ansett days. Loaded the wrong passengers on the aircraft. The problem became apparent somewhere over centrals southern NSW, when the Captain gave the time of arrival etc. for Adelaide, more or less together, 102 finger hit the call button, the Brisbane passengers.

And yes, the Adelaide self loading freight was somewhere a bit north of WLM by the time the message got through. And, yes again, this was before any routine PA announcement, just before closing the doors, saying where aeroplane was going -- which appeared in the cabin SOPs very shortly after.

The poor bastard who was the T/O responsible, an old mate, never lived it down, because we didn't let him.

The TAA mob couldn't manage to stop laughing for day.

Tootle pip!!

Capt Claret
1st Nov 2009, 18:06
does that seem possible?

I know of a flight that arrived with no baggage at all, despite what the load sheet said.

The Skipper was asked to advise the pax of the stuff up on arrival. He, politely, declined! :E

Mr. Hat
1st Nov 2009, 22:45
Leadsled thats pure gold.

blueloo
2nd Nov 2009, 00:05
In the end the Tiger always bites you !!!!!


Will that bloke ever live that statement down? :ugh:

Ken Borough
2nd Nov 2009, 00:08
If this is a true story, how have Tiger managed to keep the media off it? If ever a yarn had legs, this has to have been it!

YPJT
2nd Nov 2009, 00:15
Leadsled,
I remember the same thing on an Ansett flight MEL-PER back in the 80s. A guy boarded the plane at the last minute sat down in the aisle seat next to me and promptly nodded off. The feint aroma of stale alcohol permeating the immediate area. About 45 minutes into the flight when the meal service started he woke to look at the gastronomic delight now laid out on his tray table. His comment "this is pretty good for a Melbourne to Sydney flight eh"?

After composing myself, I gave the poor guy the bad news. He called one of the cabin crew and showed his boarding pass. Her comment was just as classic "yes sir, you're going to Sydney" pause "and this plane is going to Perth - oh shit".

As luck would have it, our wayward pax arrived in Perth just in time to be put on the midnight horror back to Sydney and arrive bright eyed and bushy tailed on parade next morning. He was an AJ.

At least electronic gate readers have all but eliminated this occurring these days.

blueloo
2nd Nov 2009, 00:18
If this is a true story, how have Tiger managed to keep the media off it? If ever a yarn had legs, this has to have been it!

Is it media worthy?

tasdevil.f27
2nd Nov 2009, 00:19
Happened at OOL either late last year or earlier this year on 2 Jet* flights, a couple of cans went to ADL by mistake. Needless to say the Leading Hands were stood down for a while, just another day at Oceania....

Ken Borough
2nd Nov 2009, 00:22
Is it media worthy?

Probably not but this is stuff on which the tabloid media thrives.

Capn Bloggs
2nd Nov 2009, 03:55
pilotshorvath,

I could be wrong, and if I am, I'm more than happy to be corrected.
and
Could any ground crew out there confirm/deny this summary?!
Are you telling us or asking us? I suggest that you desist from sledging My Oleo is Extended until you establish exactly what procedures are in place at what company.

To suggest that a 6 tonne error is nothing to worry about shows you have little idea about this type of operation. Had a mid size jet had an error like that and a normal performance buffer of only a couple of tonnes and suffered an engine failure at the wrong time, a smoking hole in the ground would be a distinct possibility.

The recent incident in Melbourne with Emirates showed that even an aircraft with a 100 tonne discrepancy can get off the ground.
Had they lost an engine at rotate, the following event would have been as Oleo suggested. Maybe you didn't know, but these types of aeroplanes are designed (and required) to be flown so that if an engine fails, with no further action by the crew like slamming the throttles to the full forward position, the aeroplane will fly away OK. In both your scenarios, it would have done nothing of the sort.

captaintunedog777
2nd Nov 2009, 05:35
I agree Gutso.
"my oleo is extended" are you by any chance a newly rated CPL VFR pilot or a journo?

rescue 1
2nd Nov 2009, 05:43
This is clearly a rumour - we are talking about an airline that charges for bags...every passenger would have only had carry on :D

my oleo is extended
2nd Nov 2009, 09:47
Firstly, I said that

The reality is that this sort of incident will one day result in a passenger jet not getting off the ground and ploughing into a residential estate, airport infrastructure or an adjacent ocean to an airport. The risk of a stall or aircraft entering an undesired state also should be added to the list.

pilotshorvath says

Oh, please spare us the drama!

I could be wrong, and if I am, I'm more than happy to be corrected......but:


Top points for drama Mr. Oleo, but unlikely to happen due to mis-loading as suggested.

But let's play hypotheticals for a bit: Even IF an aircraft was loaded with more cargo than planned, I doubt that it would cause it to be "unable to get of the ground and plough into the houses at the end of runway". The recent incident in Melbourne with Emirates showed that even an aircraft with a 100 tonne discrepancy can get off the ground.

But like is said, this is based on my experience/what I have seen. I am happy to be shown/proven otherwise.
My response is with two examples of what can occur from an incorrectly loaded aircraft , so consider yourself proven wrong –

Example 1 ) In January 2003, Air Midwest FL 5481, a Beech 1900D crashed shortly after takeoff from Charlotte, North Carolina, killing 2 crew members and all 19 passengers onboard.The NTSB established that after takeoff the pilots had been unable to control the pitch of the aircraft. One of the reasons for this was that the aircraft was overloaded and had an aft center of gravity that exceeds design limits, a mistake made by flight dispatch and ground personnel.
I am sure the families of the deceased wouldnt view that sort of accident as 'drama' ?
Example 2) November 2008 Western Australia, F100 - Prior to the departure, the freight was loaded into the incorrect bay and the cargo nets were not secured. Subsequently, during the descent, the freight shifted resulting in the autopilot having difficulties holding the required descent speed. An undesired aircraft state occurred. ATSB .

Further to your remarks,true, the Emirates aircraft did become airborne, only after banging the tarmac several times, scraping its tail past the runway end across the grass and airport infrastructure causing over $100 million damage and coming within 1.4 seconds of a complete hull loss and Australia’s worst aviation accident. I think the ATSB are better educated than you are pilotshorvath. Had the weather been different, or the aircraft even heavier than it was or as Capn Bloggs suggested ‘an engine failure upon rotation’ it would have been a ‘smoking hole in the ground’ outcome.
So pilotshorvath your suggestion that an incorrectly loaded aircraft wont cause a crash is based on either stupidity, lack of experience or your dependence upon alcohol.


Next, Captaintunedog777, you said -
I agree Gutso.
"my oleo is extended" are you by any chance a newly rated CPL VFR pilot or a journo?
My response is NO to both questions. I have a question however for you captaintunedog777 – ‘ Do you actually fly 777’s in the real world or are you a Microsoft Boeing 777 Pilot ?

Lastly,Captain Bloggs, thank you for input. It is obvious that you are a Pilot with actual experience on large jets or at least have sound knowledge of safety.

topend3
2nd Nov 2009, 10:30
Aero-Care is the ground handler for Tiger, so no doubt if true there will be a large "please explain"

ozineurope
2nd Nov 2009, 10:40
Off topic but........

I remember doing a famil flight (yep we used to get them!!) as an ATC based in Perth, with Ansett WA on a FK28 back in the mid 80s. Met the crew and we wandered out to the aircraft. Looked at the reg - thinks to self 'hmm I thought we were on FKO not D to GEL/CAR/LM and return.' Oh well the Capt and the FO did not seem to mind, so maybe late change to aircraft.

Pre flight done, pax loading, doors about to close - 2 blokes in AWA costume run up to the front waving madly! Stop everything, crew look at each other, then me in the jump seat, then press the call button. Sheepish looks now as the 2 other blokes are climbing the stairs. 'Where do you think we are going' Capt says to Purser - Kal and back the answer comes. 'Crap' or words to that effect.

Unplug, avoiding the eyes of everyone, climb down stairs, climb up stairs of FKO. Repeat the check list etc. FO turns to me and says - 'this doesn't happen everyday you know!!'

We then had a great time recounting war stories in between answering pesky ATC transmissions!! A great airline with great crews - I miss the good old days!!

pilotshorvath
2nd Nov 2009, 12:09
Clearly some parts of my posts were misinterpreted and taken out of context. I am more then well aware of the potential safety implications of incorrectly loading an aircraft, and I don't take them lightly. Also, to suggest that I blindly stated that an accident won't happen also surprised me. So, allow me to elaborate/clarify my post:

1---

Are you telling us or asking us?

I don't understand why it created confusion: Up until my post, nobody had posted any information about how loading was usually done by the bigger airlines (QF, JQ, TT, DJ). I was providing pprune readers with a summary of how I believed loading to take place (from a flight crew perspective), so other people who aren't so involved in aviation (or in the day-to-day operations) reading the posts could understand the way it works. So, I was giving the flight crew perspective, and asking the guys who actually do it (the ground crew) to fill in any gaps. I was certainly not lecturing anybody (just providing some information) so I have no idea why some people take it that way???:confused:

2---

I don't 'sledge' people. In fact, I consider all of Mr. Oleo's questions in his first post quite valid. When I first read Mr. Oleo's second post, I read it as him/her implying that an A320/B737 or even a widebody would most definitely run into this problem because of mis-loaded passenger bags.

Clearly the Fokker 100 is a passenger jet, so if his comments were of a more general nature, and not in relation to something like an A320/319, then he is totally correct, and I agree.

Sorry Mr.Oleo if you took offence to my drama comment, it was not intended that way, as I was making it in relation to an A320 size aircraft and passenger bags, not generally.

This leads me onto why I said 'drama' in relation to the Tiger example (3)...

3---

I never said an accident wouldn't happen, and being taken out of context makes it sound even worse....

but unlikely to happen due to mis-loading as suggested.

Note I said "unlikely" in the context of what we were discussing: mis-loaded passenger bags on a A320/319 aircraft.

Sure, while the Beech 1900D and Fokker100 examples clearly show the danger of mis-loading aircraft, my comments of drama relate to the possibility of this occurring in this example: ie a practical example

- My comment of 100 tonnes and Emirates was to show that 144-180 odd passenger bags on an A320 were small in weight by comparison!

- Most of the time, the thrust limits set for takeoff include 1-2 tonne buffers.

-The maximum weight by which this aircraft would have theoritically been overloaded was 6 tonnes. But this was assuming that 200 people had 30kg bags each, and the other flight had NO planned bags. In reality, both the MEL and OOL flights would have had estimated bags in the Estimated ZFW, so actual amount of overloading would realistically be no more than about 3 tonnes, and that's being generous! Plus, both flights would usually have had the bags loaded in the same cargo area.

So, going back to what I said: I still believe it is unlikely, based on the Tiger example. My reasoning?: If the crew have a 2 tonne buffer on the takeoff figures, and the bags are 2 tonnes over what the load sheet says they are, then the aircraft is actually taking off with thrust required=thrust set, hence it is unlikely to end up in the houses at the end of the runway, even with an engine failure at V1, because all performance criteria are met, or at least very close to being met.

-----

I hope this cleared up my post. If not, fire away.... :ok:

captaintunedog777
2nd Nov 2009, 21:19
Oleo

The examples you have stated do not bare resemblence to the Tiger situation. B1900=bug smasher. F100 (a little bigger than a bug smasher) cargo shifted. Same thing would happen on a 747 if all pax gathered in the rear. The Emrates was an incorrect power setting.

Now son we are all aware of the issues with regard to weight and balance. But a few mispalced bags isn't going to send the a/c into the ground. The obstacle clearance may be compromised if an engine failed on take off if large enough. These big and bigger babies have fat built due to clowns who load a/c incorrectly and even hit a/c without reporting the incident.

I fly something real and rather large. And how about you. CPL VFR or CPL Grade III?

Have a fantastic Melbourne Cup day son. I know i will.

Worrals in the wilds
2nd Nov 2009, 22:20
So out of interest, in your opinions a A320 with a much heavier load than planned for would not have serious issues on takeoff?

In the incident I referred to, the first aircraft to depart was the lighter one, and apparently apart from a 'What the...' moment on takeoff there were no real issues. IIRC the load control documents were for the lighter load as there had been a barrow mix up on the ramp, so no-one knew the load was incorrect until takeoff, when the crew reported anomalies and someone stuck their head in the other A320:eek:.

The people on the ground (the ones who goofed) were devoutly thankful that the heavier A320 had not departed first, as they seemed to think it may have been a bit hairy on takeoff, although the main RWY here is a 4F XXL model. They also thought the fuel consumption would have been greater and may have required a pit stop along the way. Is that a likely outcome? I'm not aware of the respective weights, but there was a reasonable difference, from memory about 60 pax versus a full load.

I've never flown anything bigger than a Cessna (and frequently ballsed up the wieght and balance exercises :O) so I'd be interested to hear more.

captaintunedog777
2nd Nov 2009, 23:33
Ok

I know one thing is for sure. This is not an isolated incident. It would occur on a daily basis somewhere around the world.

Let's see

50 bags @ 20kg ([email protected]) each = 1000kg
100 bags @ 20kg each = 2000kg

This will not bring an a/c down and the increase in fuel consumption on at most a 2 hour leg a few hundred kilos extra per hour. Say you plan to land with 3 to 3.5 ton. You would be landing maybe 2.0 to 2.5 ton with an extra 2 ton of bags.

Thses are rough figures and not specifically related to the A320 but other a/c in a similar size range.

my oleo is extended
3rd Nov 2009, 09:29
Righto captaintunedog777, worrals and pilotshorvath.Three on one,you win. And I accept defeat graciously.

Lets agree to disagree.Its obvious that we all have experience and technical skills of varying backgrounds,even perhaps some modern and old fashioned views on safety and 'norms'. I actually do respect that.
Some people would not have an issue taking off several tonne out of trim, thats fine. However I dont subscribe to that veiw.
Lets close things off there.

To be honest, I kinda like captaintunedog777 calling me son ! Its kind of endearing. Perhaps we will be rostered together soon ?

P.S I did ok in the Cup. I picked up a place in box trifecta, and a win,and took home over $400. Nothing to sneeze at, but a great day at the races. To show I am a fair sport and respect the elderly,I am dedicating a 'scotch, neat' to you as I type !

pilotshorvath
3rd Nov 2009, 11:02
"Several Tonne out of trim".

If I may borrow this idea from you Oleo to provide a little extra information for any casual/PPL/non-pilot people out there reading this topic who may be interested!:)

(For example Worrals in post #29):ok:

The loading of the aircraft has two implications: weight and balance.

Weight:

Imagine loading up a Cessna 172 to 1kg less that its Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW), and then just before you get on board, you grab a 1 Litre bottle of water to take with you for the journey. While this would take the aircraft up to MTOW, you would we be unable to tell the difference in performance caused by that bottle of water. Why: because 1kg compared to the rest of the aircraft at circa 1000kg, is a very small percentage.

Just like on a Boeing 777, which nudges 351 tonnes MTOW, 2 tonnes of bags is a small percentage.

But, and here is the rub, the Cessna 172 has one Takeoff Power setting: Full Throttle. So, its take off performance is based on full power. When you look at something like the A320, or even 777, they have seriously over powered engines, in some part because they need one-engine performance. So, if the aircraft is lighter than MTOW, you can actually takeoff with less than full power (with a setting equivalent to that weight).

When setting this reduced power, it is equivalent a certain weight, and that's why I mentioned the 1-2 tonne buffer that most operators would use.

Balance:

Let's go back to that Cessna 172 about to take off. Regardless of whether you are going on a Solo circuit (light) or going on a trip with 3 friends (MTOW), you really only have one trim setting for takeoff: Neutral. This is because Mr.Cessna has determined that effect of the being loaded in the range of forward and aft Centre of Gravity limits are so small, that the takeoff 'range' is effectively just one setting.

However, imagine the effects on an A320 (for example) of loading 100 people in the front seats versus loading them all in the back seats. The 'nose-heavy' or 'tail-heavy' feelings are now going to be quite pronounced, because of the length of the aircraft.

So, to counter the pitching effect during take off, larger aircraft have a range of takeoff trim settings.

So while it is still possible to load a large passenger jet outside the CG limits, if there is only a small CG change due to 1 tonne of bags, it would more likely result in the pilots feeling that the aircraft was 'out-of-trim' based on the setting they set from the LIR information.

----

Worrals, don't worry, a Airbus or Boeing W&B sheet is just like the CPL charts, just bigger, (with more lines and 'zones').:}

P.S. I bet on so many different horses, that although I picked the winner, I came out just about even. But at least I still got that 'tipped a winner' feeling. :}

LeadSled
3rd Nov 2009, 11:34
YPJT,
A personal experience:

Two elderly people who had arrived in SIN on BA, in transit to BNE, wound up on my aeroplane and ended back in London, where they had started about 30 hours earlier.

I really felt sorry for them, it was probably the last time they would have had the chance to see their grandchildren in Australia, I don't know the final outcome, we did ask BA to be compassionate, under the circumstances.

Quite how they slipped through all the "checks and balances", and on the wrong airline, going in the wrong direction, doesn't give me much faith in the "security procedures" to this day. So much for multiple checks of boarding card. So much for head counts.

As for baggage cans on the wrong aeroplane, that is an almost daily occurrence at Heathrow.

A long time ago now, a mis-loaded QF 707 freighter (that long ago) got airborne out of Honolulu some 20,000 lb over max gross. Luckily the offending pallets were mid- compartment, C.of G was not a problem, but according to the crew, the performance was somewhat less than sprightly.

Would have been the wrong night to loose an engine, but they didn't.

Don't even start me on mis-loaded freighters, hard learned lessons taught me to check every pallet weight and position against the load sheet, more than once we have ordered everything off and start again.

The freighter safety record, world wide, is not good.

Anybody remember the double loaded Nomad at Madang (?) Amazing save by the PIC.

Tootle pip!!

my oleo is extended
3rd Nov 2009, 12:09
Pilotshorvath, please, I insist.......
If I may borrow this idea from you Oleo to provide a little extra information for any casual/PPL/non-pilot people out there reading this topic who may be interested!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

Excellent presentation and exceptional training skills with your post... The young lads and ladette's out there are fortunate to receive a valuable free lesson.
On a further note,I am pleased to see you broke close to even on the cup.

'Safe Horse Racing For All '

captaintunedog777
3rd Nov 2009, 23:22
Okay here is another angle also

Your fully loaded 320 will climb out initially maybe 1500 fpm in the first segment. Now imagine losing an engine. You lose more than 70% power and you are now down to maybe a few hundred feet per minute but you maintain that magical 35 feet obstacle clearance. No a few thousand kilos of excess baggage will not bring down an airliner but possibly will compromise engine out performance. Now what are the odds of that happening? Sound like ETOPS.

Metro man
4th Nov 2009, 00:06
An extra couple of tons won't make much difference, a knot or two on the take off speeds and a degree or two at the flex temperature. Likely error would have only been a low single figure % of the aircrafts max take off weight. With auto trim I doubt any differences in handling would have been felt. With relatively short sectors the extra fuel burn may not have been noticed.

In the case of Emirates the error was in the order of a third of max take off weight on an aircraft much more limiting. An A320 on a 3km runway, sea level reasonable temperatures, even at max weight still performs well and gets airborne with plenty of runway left. A wide bodied aircraft four or five time heavier is often close to the limits, demands far greater accuracy and is much less forgiving of errors.

Looking at a take off chart for a runway I often use, calm wind, the difference between speeds at the highest and lowest weights are only five knots and four degrees difference in flex temp. Looking quickly I can see a max difference in speeds of fourteen knots with different wind and flap configurations. These are for reduced power take offs as well, full power could be quickly applied if needed.

I once passengered on a turbo prop where the captain had made a gross error in weight calculations and had twice as much freight as he thought. Not fun.

Worrals in the wilds
4th Nov 2009, 08:06
Interesting. Thanks very much, guys. :)

captaintunedog777
4th Nov 2009, 22:38
Speaking of V speeds. The V speeds on on the category of heaving jet I operate are occasionally 1 knot. diff IE V1 and VR are 150 and V2 151. Are we really that good?

pilotshorvath
4th Nov 2009, 23:24
captaintunedog777


Are we really that good?


This question is vague to me...

Are you asking if 150 knots is high or low, if a one knot difference is normal, a rhetorical question or something else? :confused:

adl1745
19th Jan 2010, 05:08
Should this incident have been reported to the ATSB?

Ixixly
19th Jan 2010, 05:31
Probably not, but your use of necromancy of this thread should most likely to be reported to the authorities...

framer
19th Jan 2010, 05:58
It is a common event.
I have seen the baggage for two seperate flights loaded onto one a/c with air new zealand (picked up on walk around by f/o) and also seen bags for one flight loaded onto a different a/c with Jetstar.....picked up after start but before taxi by ground staff. I have also been on the flight deck of an a/c where full fwd yoke to the stops was required to keep the nose from rising and speed decaying after rotation due to incorrect loading. Nasty nasty stuff.
It is the price we pay for having a transient workforce on the ground. Invest little in their training and make them work part time rosters and they see it as a temporary job rather than a career that has future and responsibilty. Many loaders I talk to now could care less that they are involved in an a/c operation, it may as well be a truck or a train they are loading. Little training is provided to them (it costs money) and many of them have no idea that the work they do is important. I like to blame accountants, it makes me feel better.
Framer

gobbledock
19th Jan 2010, 09:35
Careful framer,
The majority of poster's and fellow aviation specialists would disagree with your following comment :

I have seen the baggage for two seperate flights loaded onto one a/c with air new zealand (picked up on walk around by f/o) and also seen bags for one flight loaded onto a different a/c with Jetstar.....picked up after start but before taxi by ground staff. I have also been on the flight deck of an a/c where full fwd yoke to the stops was required to keep the nose from rising and speed decaying after rotation due to incorrect loading. Nasty nasty stuff.

And what is scary is that other fellow Pilots agree that the misplacement of baggage, incorrect LIR's and a myriad of other 'loading mistakes' wouldn't cause a problem ! Now that is scary !
Well my friend, I concur with you entirely as I have had a similar incident occur to me, and other Drivers have told me the same story. In fact when you fly for an LCC and basically the same 320 every week over a long period of time you learn quickly when something feels 'out of kilter'. And the scene that you painted is spot on. What is reported is just the tip of the iceberg and I would doubt all actual incidents are reported in the first place, which is something I would have never suggested 7 or 8 years ago.

Some more accurate reporting by you:

It is the price we pay for having a transient workforce on the ground. Invest little in their training and make them work part time rosters and they see it as a temporary job rather than a career that has future and responsibilty. Many loaders I talk to now could care less that they are involved in an a/c operation, it may as well be a truck or a train they are loading. Little training is provided to them (it costs money) and many of them have no idea that the work they do is important.

Absolutely spot on again. I have even had ramp staff tell me that they 'couldn't give a s*#t' because the Senior Managers don't' !
And for those who are disbelievers, trawl through the ATSB weekly occurence reports and add up how many 'ramp loading incidents' have occured with AUS operators over the past 3 years. Around 130 reportables on containerised aircraft alone, with around 90% of these incidents belonging to just one LCC !!! But hey, there are no serious issues out there , no systemic problems, and all these reports made to the ATSB which are mandatory in relation to loading mistakes are supposedly an over-reaction according to most of our fellow posters which would mean the ATSB has it all wrong as well ?

All very interesting me thinks. And so it goes.

VBPCGUY
19th Jan 2010, 21:54
What a crock of shit framer:yuk:

framer
20th Jan 2010, 09:39
What a crock of shit framerhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gifWow! thats an interesting reaction.lol.
Why on earth do you feel so strongly about my comments?
The events I described are 100% true and I can give you details via pm if you wish......might even be able to drag an incident report off my laptop if I dig deep enough.

I hope your day gets better mate,
Framer


edited to spell feel correctly

pilotshorvath
20th Jan 2010, 11:28
I have also been on the flight deck of an a/c where full fwd yoke to the stops was required to keep the nose from rising and speed decaying after rotation due to incorrect loading.


Framer, It would be interesting to know what type/size of aircraft this was on, and what the incorrect loading/weight was!

-------

EG, was that event in the jet narrow body category and as a result of 1-2 tonnes of mis-loaded bags?

gobbledock
20th Jan 2010, 11:29
Framer,
I say this while biting my tongue and trying to remain a good boy and not upset the mods, but VBPCGUY is obviously a youngling mate, naieve and inexperienced. Too much time sniffing jet fuel and cabin crews panties in locker 1a. Not only that, remember there are other 'alleged' Drivers who have posted on this thread who also think there is virtually no issue if you throw a passenger jet out of balance by 6 tonne :ugh::ugh:

P.S
If you could provide poof to pilotshorvath as you were willing to give to VBPCGUY that would be good because he also is a non believer in the crash likelihood of an out of trim aircraft. I have a tonne of evidence myself, as well as personal experience ( widebody aircraft and a selection of narrow bodied aircraft ) and mountains of other evidence but have chosen to retain the data and not break any 'legal bounds'. Besides, I don't need to prove anything to anybody else, I have seen and personally experienced the facts stated within this thread. As for the poster's who back the facts that an out of trim aircraft, incorrectly loaded aircraft or virtually any weight and balance irregularity or mistake won't cause a fatal crash, you are wrong.

pilotshorvath
20th Jan 2010, 12:24
Gobbledock,

I operate real aircraft, am aware of balance issues, and always operate safely. I also never said that being 6 tonnes out of balance is going to go unnoticed, but anyway...

Can we just go back to what started this thread?...


that bags for two TT flights leaving Adelaide were put on the wrong flights... apparently all bags going to Melbourne were loaded onto the Gold coast flight, and the bags for Gold coast were loaded onto the Melbourne flight...


Tiger operate A319/320 aircraft.

So with the experience/reports you have, could you say there has been a crash in these circumstances? Obviously I don't need specifics, but I'd like to know if there have been any cases in the world where this sort of mis-load has caused a crash, or full-forward yoke effects similar to what framer mentioned. I certainly haven't heard of any (that are a result of conditions similar to THIS loading scenario). Eg. 1-2 tonnes of bags on a narrowbody aircraft

If you have a link to an Investigation Report (eg. like what ATSB puts out) from an aviaiton investigation board anywhere in the world, then others may be able to read it and learn something!

Safe flying! :ok:

framer
20th Jan 2010, 16:24
Framer, It would be interesting to know what type/size of aircraft this was on, and what the incorrect loading/weight was!

Thats fair enough Pilotshorvath, it was a medium sized twin turbo-prop and the extra weight was well aft and from memory totalled about 5% of the aircrafts MTOW. I take the point that it is maybe not totally relevant to this conversation. I mention it because it really struck a chord with me regards out of trim situations and changed my attitude towards them.
I don't profess to be an expert on the subject but I can't see why 3 tonnes on a 60 tonne aircraft would be much different. There may be good reasons why it is different. I am ready to learn if someone can explain it to me.

Gobbledock, on closer inspection I think VBPCGUY might be a loader and was somehow offended by me saying they don't have good enough training/conditions etc...strange thing about that is that I was saying they need to be treated better.

Cheers Framer

ad-astra
20th Jan 2010, 21:14
Probably not, but your use of necromancy of this thread should most likely to be reported to the authorities...

Ixixly.....Very very funny!

Alas it was lost on all but myself.

For the rest continue with the feeding frenzy.....

VBPCGUY
20th Jan 2010, 22:12
Framer please send me the PM Id be interested to have a read.

framer
21st Jan 2010, 07:44
PM sent VBPC,
Have a good one, Framer
Now back to the topic,
1-2 tonnes of bags on a narrowbody aircraft

To answer your question,

I can't think of an accident caused by this but what do you think would happen to your 35ft clearance if you lost an engine after a reduced thrust take-off that had obstacle clearance as it's limitation? C of G issues aside you are going to chew up more runway getting to your Vr and then on top of that you are going to have a lesser ROC . If you add to that pitch oscillations etc it could well be an accident.
If the chance of those things coming together is too remote for you then why don't we just adjust the C of G limits so that it will work with all engines but you're stuffed if you lose one?
Hopefully that didn't sound condescending , it wasn't meant to, it just seems to me that that is what you propose we accept.
Cheers, Framer

Panop
28th Jan 2010, 10:04
Mildly off topic but even full loads of SLF can end up on the wrong aircraft so what chance do bags have
.
http://www.pprune.org/5010554-post42.html

Willoz269
28th Jan 2010, 22:56
This brings back a lot of memories....in the old days of Compass, Australian Airlines baggage handlers did the loading in Melbourne due to lack of space....they would ALWAYS load an LD3 container on the wrong flight, or individual bags on the wrong flight....everytime Compass staff went to the baggage loading area to verify, AA baggage handlers would stop work until they left, so there was nothing that could be done.

I remember a prized Poodle dog was sent to Perth in a crate when the destination should have been Cairns...complaints used to mount, but nothing could be done about it.

Also remember another time a freight forwarder brought a large pallet for loading on an A300 Sydney- Cairns...the freight forwarder brought the pallet on a trolley in the middle of the night, towed by a huge truck...in the manifest it said 2 tons of machine parts....no problems, except that the wheels on the trolley holding the pallet were being pushed down and out by the weight of the pallet. The Compass loading guys were curious and decided to tow the pallet to Qantas to make use of their pallet scales...only problem was, the baggage tug could barely tow the pallet!!! A truck was brought in and the pallet was towed to QF, and to everyone's astonightment, it weighed 13 tons!!! It was no general machinery, it was steel rail wheels and brake assemblies!! The freight forwarder explained that his scales were broken so he just used the same weight he used every single night on every pallet he sent to Qantas and Singapore Airlines...only in this case, the discrepancy was 9tons!

pilotshorvath
3rd Feb 2010, 11:06
it just seems to me that that is what you propose we accept.


Not at all! It's an open forum after all, where people can discuss things. :ok:

Speaking of which, I finally had a bit of time to print off some blank weight and balance sheets and play around with some figures.

Yes, while a few of my practice loads opened my eyes, I came up with some general observations:

1) With an unplanned load, it is much more likely that balance would be of more concern than engine/takeoff performance, especially if the operator includes buffers on the takeoff figures.

2) Using the most critical passenger and fuel loads (the ones that create most CG movement, it is possible to get right near the aft CG limit WITHOUT pax bags, so if you put 2 tonne of bags in the rear-most cargo hold, it would create issues.:ooh:

3) However, with an average load of bags (e.g. for Melbourne or Gold Coast- this topic), the CG ends up relatively close to the middle of the range, and an extra 1-2 tonnes still keeps within CG limits almost every time. Tiger would have had to be very unlucky to end up out of balance with the MEL-OOL bag mix-up.

So, can a narrow body jet be loaded out of balance: definitely, but you have to try pretty hard to do it.

But yes, I learnt a few things too! :ok::}

Carrier
5th Feb 2010, 14:48
Quote: "and I would doubt all actual incidents are reported in the first place"

This is a major issue. Stories are circulating about a number of pilots with various air operators in Canada being terminated because they reported safety issue under the SMS. Pilots and others are afraid to make reports that might cost them their jobs. The SMS idea has broken down. As a result nobody knows the extent of safety problems but it has clearly been substantially degraded as problems are swept under the carpet and the same safety threats are allowed to continue or even increase.

VH-Cheer Up
6th Feb 2010, 12:03
As luck would have it, our wayward pax arrived in Perth just in time to be put on the midnight horror back to Sydney and arrive bright eyed and bushy tailed on parade next morning. He was an AJ.

Alright, I'll bite. What's an AJ?

positivegee
6th Feb 2010, 13:23
As far as I know AJ means Army Jerk but I know this term is not meant to offend, just a nickname for army staff; please don't be offended army people. :):)

Panop
9th Feb 2010, 11:58
So, can a narrow body jet be loaded out of balance: definitely, but you have to try pretty hard to do it.From memory, it was much easier to get out of balance in the 'old days' with rear engine aircraft such as the BAC One-Eleven (don't know about the B717 or F100 but I imagine the same would tend to apply) as they, not unnaturally, tended towards tail heaviness. I'm pretty sure ballast was sometimes required in the front hold if the flight was unladen and ballast fuel wasn't possible due to the length of the sector - e.g. a very lengthy positioning flight. Otherwise, the aircraft would, theoretically at least, have been out of trim on landing. On lightly loaded flights the correct positioning of baggage/freight and even pax was necessary with whole blocks of seats unavailable.

How much of this was a real issue and how much was just to make the paperwork look right I will leave others to decide but I would not want my signature on the papers of a flight that had an 'incident' if I wasn't reasonably confident that all was correct in the weight and balance area.

Freighters were easy to load out of trim, of course, that's where a good loadmaster was worth his weight in kilos. I recall witnessing a CL-44 on the ramp at LGW that had been very badly loaded by the night loaders (who had been supervised by a somewhat careless ground handling agent without the benefit of a 'proper' loadmaster) gently trying to fly whilst parked on its stand as the morning breeze created lift across its wings. The nose rose and lowered with the breeze and the tail sank very close to the ground at times. Heavy concrete blocks had to be tied to the nosewheels to get it back on the ground and a complete reload (and expensive rescheduling) was necessary. Had the error not been quite enough for the error to be that obvious and take-off attempted I do not think all would have gone too well though maybe I'm underestimating the ability of the superb old Canadair.