View Full Version : Jetstar A321 YMML Incident

4th Dec 2015, 01:57
Some serious questions to be asked.

Full aft is concerning.

On 29 October 2015, an Airbus A321, registered VH-VWT and operated by Jetstar Airways (Jetstar), was scheduled to conduct a passenger flight from Melbourne, Victoria, to Perth, Western Australia. During the take-off roll, the pilot flying noticed that the aircraft was nose-heavy and required an almost full aft control input to raise the aircraft’s nose. Once airborne, the flight crew requested the cabin crew to confirm the passenger numbers and seating locations. The flight crew re-entered the updated information into the flight management computer and identified that the aircraft was outside the aircraft’s loading limits for take-off and landing. Passengers were relocated within the aircraft cabin to return the aircraft to within allowable limits for the remainder of the flight and landing.

4th Dec 2015, 12:32
This case seems too excessive. There would be errors for balance calculations, but not like this. Surprised to know that.
Is Jetstar using some apps(iPad? Laptops?) for weight and balance?
Does the pilots do it by themselves?

At least, lucky for them to made takeoff...

4th Dec 2015, 21:04
Do we have pilots whose mental arithmetic cannot cross check the data output? Remember 'Garbage in, Garbage out'.

4th Dec 2015, 21:22
Do we have pilots whose mental arithmetic cannot cross check the data output? Would you like to suggest an excercise how to keep those skills sharp with regards to incorrectly indcated CG on the loadsheet?

The manufacturer of the aircraft I fly states, that if the CG is within limits for TKOF and trim set also within the limits for takeoff, the A/C is always flyable. Irrespective of the actual position, ie. full FW CG and full aft trim. Is this a feature implemented by virtue or an airworthiness requirement?

Thanks, FD.

4th Dec 2015, 23:27
I have several times been a PAX on flights where the front rows of the cabin were 'not to be occupied' so as keep the CofG within limits.
Obviously it was not a fully-occupied aircraft (and there was demand on boarding for those unoccupied seats).