QF24 Takeoff Weight Discrepency

[Hogger60]

The most perplexing thing I find with this article is the fact that load control is in Warsaw, Poland :sad::E:rolleyes:WTF? How many KM is that from Oz?

From Flight Global

Qantas A330 take-off weight discrepancy spurs procedural changes

23 DECEMBER, 2015 BY: GREG WALDRON SINGAPORE
Qantas Airways has changed its loading procedures from Bangkok after an Airbus A330-300 aircraft departed with a 2,785kg load discrepancy owing to a miscommunication among ground staff.

The incident occurred on 23 July 2015 and involved the aircraft registered VH-QPJ, says the Australian Transport Safety Board (ATSB) in a statement. The aircraft was operating flight QF24 on the Bangkok Suvarnabhumi-Sydney route.

A miscommunication during two phone calls between loading supervisor in Bangkok and Qanta’s load controller in Warsaw, Poland led to a container being mistakenly left aboard the aircraft in position 23P.

As a result, the data the crew used to calculate reference speeds for take-off, fuel consumption rates, and initial climb altitude were inaccurate. Nonetheless, the aircraft took off at midday and the crew noticed no abnormal flight characteristics, or receive any warnings related to the A330s weight and balance.

After the aircraft had departed, the load controller realised the error, and contacted Qantas Integrated Operations Control, which alerted the crew 75 minutes after takeoff.

The crew amended the aircraft weight in the flight management computer and the flight proceeded without further event.

“As a result of the discrepancies, Qantas advised that the maximum taxi weight had been exceeded by 1,585 kg, and the maximum take-off weight by 2,085 kg,” says the ATSB. “The initial cruise altitude of 35,000 ft did not exceed the maximum altitude when the actual weight was subsequently entered into the aircraft flight management computer.”

Qantas reviewed the incident, and has made changes for all flights out of Bangkok. Namely that the aircraft’s loading supervisor must get a scanned copy of the aircraft’s final load instruction report before transmitting the final load sheet to the crew via the aircraft reporting and addressing system (ACARS).

In addition, it has undertaken training to improve communications between ground staff, and other administrative changes.

[wanabee777]

How many times have you rotated and knew, right then and there, that your numbers weren't correct?

I lost count long ago.

[Derfred]

Every time. And did it matter? Ever? No.

Thread closing...

[wanabee777]

Ask the Fed's if it matters.

[Derfred]

You've lost me. Ask who?

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Got away with it? No worries, she'll be right mate!

Sounds like normalization of deviance is alive and well in some people.

[Boe787]

Wanabee 777, do you think this occurrence of rotating and knowing the figures are incorrect, is happening more now that Load Control is remoted by most airlines, or was it happening at the same rate 20 years ago when Load Control was a more hands on local process?

[wanabee777]

Boe,

To be perfectly honest, I don't think that centralizing load control made any noticeable difference.

From the time I started flying the 727 until I retired on the 777, the number of out of trim events while rotating seemed to remain fairly consistent. Not a high number, mind you, but consistent throughout the years and among the aircraft types I flew.

[dragon man]

The system is not good. These are two of my incidents. Ex lax staff say flight is full. Provisional load sheet shows 42 empty seats , query ground staff , no flight full, additional fuel had been ordered lucky we had an ER so all worked out. Ex Joburg , difference between flight plan and provisional load sheet of minus 10 tonnes. Extra fuel ordered. Twenty minutes later new provisional load sheet 10 tonnes back on, can't get airborne. Delay departure, temperature drops all good. The airline is dysfunctional.

[The Green Goblin]

I can't understand why you need a load control department, when with software these days it's very straightforward to do it yourself.

Provided of course the information from the gate and the leading hand are correct.

By getting rid of the load control department you're getting rid of one extra loop. You're also allowing the crew to assess the figures independently to make sure they come up with the same result.

[Checklist Charlie]

Greenie a second pair of eyes (the crew) is not a bad idea and who in your scenario would do the load plan?

CC

[The Green Goblin]

There should be a loading matrix for the aircraft.

The rampies load the aircraft according to the matrix.

Computer software allocates seats according to the matrix.

The flight planning department compute the flight plan based on the estimated load.

The flight crew enter the figures into their iPad app and it spits out the trim position and the weights. The flight crew then enter the weights into the manufacturers performance apps (like Airbus' fly smart) and it spits out the speeds and thrust.

It's all pretty simple stuff.

It certainly beats manual trim sheets that we did in a previous airline :)

[ExtraShot]

Provided of course the information from the gate and the leading hand are correct.

I think herein lies the problem. Rubbish in Rubbish out. In both cases.

You may get rid of the Load Control Loop, but add in Poorly trained/qualified (or fatigued / don't give a stuff / been on the cans the night before ) ground or loading staff? Most of them do a great job, but it only takes one…

You are only replacing one thing for another is the point i guess.

[Australopithecus]

...is not the load controllers. It is the ramp staff, or at least it has been in the handful of minor incidents that I have had. And as the world moves away from expensive legacy ramp people expect every bit of care that peanuts will buy. The load controller has to rely on the information provided by the leading hand on the ramp regardless of where he is physically located.

The Polish load controllers seem a bit sharper than the previous mob in H.K., or at least to the extent that I can tell.

Regarding pilot generated load sheets: While I have done them in the past on simpler types like 737s, I don't have time on the current pre-flight to devote to making decisions about what freight goes and what doesn't, nor where the various hazardous, live and special cargoes are are loaded compared to where they are supposed to be. Its a simple matter when the payload is just pax and bags...not so when freight gets involved.

[Capt Fathom]

So we have 2 people in different parts of the world.
English is not their native language.
They are on the phone, discussing the loading of an aeroplane in their Thai and Pole accents!
I can't see a problem here!

[VR-HFX]

Unless of course the discussion is in Gaelic!

[The Bullwinkle]

I'm sure this would be in accordance with "World's best practice".
Never forget that $afety is managements number 1 priority.
That's $afety with a capital $.

[framer]

So we have 2 people in different parts of the world.
English is not their native language.
They are on the phone, discussing the loading of an aeroplane in their Thai and Pole accents!
I can't see a problem here!
If that is how Qantas arrives at it's take-off weight and balance, then it was obvious to those that set up the system that these errors would happen so no one will be surprised. And unless they change the system the errors wil continue. $afety is our highest priority.

[puff]

I'm in no way suggesting the other moab is perfect - however there certainly seems to be a lot more loco related ATSB reporting for JQ/QF than at VA of late. VA still has a centralised loco based in Oz.

[Boe787]

I believe Qantas Load control for flights originating in Australia, is performed by a Centralised Load control in Sydney?

[750XL]

Centralised Load Control works perfectly across the globe, and rarely are figures ever passed verbally (though I do know a few airlines who do this).

Most stuff is all done via messages and system inputs these days so the scope for error between CLC and the ramp agent is tiny. 99.9% of errors will come from the ramp agent.

[AerialPerspective]

I can't understand why you need a load control department, when with software these days it's very straightforward to do it yourself.

Provided of course the information from the gate and the leading hand are correct.

By getting rid of the load control department you're getting rid of one extra loop. You're also allowing the crew to assess the figures independently to make sure they come up with the same result.

You're also removing an opportunity for cross-check from the system. Having worked in as a LC and in airlines where the Flight Crew the load sheet the former is far more effective. Maybe not if someone in f-cking Timbuktu is doing the load sheet in a lean to with a lap top and an extension cord.

[Deano969]

Wow you waited 8 years for your rant eh..

[PPRuNeUser01531]

The standard of ramp workers has reached an all time low. We all know why. Mistakes,incidents and safety breaches now common place,resulting in injuries,damage and delays. All these negative factors ultimately compromise the safety of the aircraft in flight. Not good AJ.

[john_tullamarine]

At the risk of sounding pompous, having the flightcrew (whose necks are on the line when you think about things) involved in the nitty gritty of the process is rather useful.

Sure, back on aircraft like the Fokker, it was pretty easy to run up a trimsheet. As others have noted, it can get a bit messier with freighters (been there, done that).

However, years ago at IPEC, we set up a system which worked really well and didn't take all that long to run.

First, the load shed folks ran up a conventional trimsheet as part of their routine activities.
Then the F/O checked the order of the cans in the aircraft.
Then the captain checked the trimsheet numbers for reasonableness and addition while the FO (using a circular version of the trimsheet - think like the nav computer) ran the CG trim numbers while the captain read the data off the manual trimsheet.

I don't recall ever hearing of a major screwup - as in one which got as far as the takeoff before the crew realised that they had a problem.

[morno]

Tiger used to have the F/O draw up a manual trim sheet and the Captain checked it. Only took a few minutes and it was rare that an error got missed.

Once Flysmart came in, both crews would do a trim sheet and compare results. Again, a very quick and easy process. Did the same at another airline and never had any problems.

The downside is when you start getting multiple zones, it can be a little more time consuming.

Saying that pilots should not be responsible though, is stretching it. Load control is more of a nice to have in my opinion, not a must have.

[AerialPerspective]

Wow you waited 8 years for your rant eh..

No. I was talking to a former colleague the other day and they mentioned that Domestic Load Control is done by Qantas in Bourke Road, Mascot but international is done in Warsaw. Incredulous, I did a google search and this thread came up and I saw the discussion so I contributed. It wasn't a 'rant', I just thought there's nothing sacred anymore and what possible advantage is there in having someone in Poland whose first language is likely not English do load sheets but 'only' for International. I'm guessing it was a saving of 50c or something and some MBA educated undiscovered genius who's never seen an aeroplane in their life must have made the decision.

[43Inches]

Flight crew being involved is a good idea, however they should at least have basic understanding of the physics involved.

“Those things are so…heavy you’d think…that they probably wouldn’t hardly move, no matter what,”

That was a quote from the Captain on the National 747 at Bagram that crashed after the rearmost armored vehicle in the load broke free, moved rearward and crushed the flight controls. He had even been told by the FO that the cargo had moved on landing and some straps were loose/broken. While they mentioned they knew about it, it sounds like no one actually checked with the load controller that the load had been re secured and extra straps added.

[Potatos_69]

No. I was talking to a former colleague the other day and they mentioned that Domestic Load Control is done by Qantas in Bourke Road, Mascot but international is done in Warsaw. Incredulous, I did a google search and this thread came up and I saw the discussion so I contributed. It wasn't a 'rant', I just thought there's nothing sacred anymore and what possible advantage is there in having someone in Poland whose first language is likely not English do load sheets but 'only' for International. I'm guessing it was a saving of 50c or something and some MBA educated undiscovered genius who's never seen an aeroplane in their life must have made the decision.

Most Poles I know probably speak more understandable English than those of us with Aussie accents…

[morno]

No. I was talking to a former colleague the other day and they mentioned that Domestic Load Control is done by Qantas in Bourke Road, Mascot but international is done in Warsaw. Incredulous, I did a google search and this thread came up and I saw the discussion so I contributed. It wasn't a 'rant', I just thought there's nothing sacred anymore and what possible advantage is there in having someone in Poland whose first language is likely not English do load sheets but 'only' for International. I'm guessing it was a saving of 50c or something and some MBA educated undiscovered genius who's never seen an aeroplane in their life must have made the decision.

What makes you think they’re less competent than an Australian?

By the way I’ve spoken to some of the load controllers in Warsaw, with names I would have no idea how to pronounce, and they speak perfect English.

[john_tullamarine]

Flight crew being involved is a good idea, however they should at least have basic understanding of the physics involved.

Training comes to mind ? I ran the pilot training for performance and weight control back in the day. Those crews had a very detailed understanding of the mathematics and the potential risks. I was flying for another operator which did much the same, albeit not to the depth that we ran at IPEC.

.. no one actually checked with the load controller that the load had been re secured and extra straps added.

There are some things which should raise really big and bright red flags and cause the pilots to take an active interest in resolution ...

What makes you think they’re less competent than an Australian?

Competence is competence and comes from training and assessing. Polish, Australian, Black, Brindle or White should make not an iota of difference, I would have thought.

[mustafagander]

On a similar trajectory, there was a night in an Asian port where the loadsheet guys could not get the B767 in trim so the system would not allow them to proceed and print a loadsheet so they did a print screen and presented that to the flight crew. As is our way in the airline the loadsheet was properly checked and this discrepancy noted. A bit of reshuffling of bins sorted it with a bit of a delay.

Take home message - always check your loadsheet.

[john_tullamarine]

so the system would not allow them to proceed and print a loadsheet

A sensible system

a print screen and presented that to the flight crew.

Internal QA nightmare system that allows for that sort of mischief ?

A bit of reshuffling of bins sorted it with a bit of a delay.

Generally a fix is not rocket science

Take home message - always check your loadsheet.

Pass, friend.

[tdracer]

About a month ago, Alaska Air had two 737s (one an NG, the other a MAX) suffer tail strikes on takeoff from Seattle (SEA) withing a few minutes - both later attributed to gross errors in the TO weight calculation. Both were headed for the Hawaiian Islands so near Max TOW. Both did air turnbacks and landed safely back at SEA (with no damage reported after their returns). At about the same, time, the crew on a few other flights noticed 'sanity check' errors in their computer generated TO weight calculations. Alaska quickly grounded all their aircraft - it didn't take long to determine that an overnight software update had introduced an error into the TO weight calculation. It didn't take long to revert the s/w to the previous version, and they were able to resume normal ops.

Alaska reiterated to their crews the importance of always doing 'sanity checks' with the TO weight and CG calculations and not just accepting it on blind faith (a good practice in many areas).

[AerialPerspective]

What makes you think they’re less competent than an Australian?

By the way I’ve spoken to some of the load controllers in Warsaw, with names I would have no idea how to pronounce, and they speak perfect English.

I don't know but I do know from many examples over my career that when you give a key function like that to someone who is remote from the operation and doesn't even work for the company, it is by definition, 'less than' if it was done in house. Reason? Qantas Load Controllers do Qantas flights every day. I'm sure the folks in Warsaw do perfectly fine most of the time but how do you know they don't go from a QF load sheet to a KLM one then to Kenya Airways, then BA, then S7 Airlines? What is the increased potential for error by mistaking a procedure for a QF one? The same doesn't apply with Ground Handling, because those people are doing the job effectively under the supervision of Qantas people on station or in the case of LAX, SFO, etc. etc. by a company that is substantially owned by Qantas and over which is has procedural control and a large amount of control over who gets and remains employed.

The more you remove a person from the operation, the more tenuous the link becomes. Would you think it acceptable if you boarded an aircraft to sit in the right hand seat and a person came on board from Nauru Airlines and said "Hey, I'm flying this Qantas flight today". Load Control is and always has been a critical function. IMHO it should remain within the control of the airline.

Besides, what is the efficacy of keeping Domestic and Regional in Bourke Road but contracting International to WAW? I'll tell you, some genius worked out that they could save a few measly bucks on shift penalties as doing it in SYD meant overnight shifts to some extent for international and basically a 0400/0500 to 2300 operation for domestic. Nothing to do with whether the people are competent or not, just once they got that measly saving in their abacus it would have been hell or high-water to contract it out.

Air NZ learnt a similar lesson in the 90s, when some bright spark decided that a marketing person could be an airport manager or duty manager and that there was absolutely no need for them to know anything about the technical workings and regulatory requirements of load control, airport operations or the like. A very senior NZ person told me, now sadly passed on, that the idea was a great one until a 'big aeroplane' with 400 people on it had to turn around and go back to LAX when they discovered a problem brought about by said person(s) deciding an issue before departure wasn't necessary to inform the crew about. You'd think after Erebus, that lesson would have been seared into everyone's brains.

Not getting down on Air NZ, they are a great and very safe airline and I would fly on them anytime, anywhere. But there's just one example of how great ideas aren't always great in practice especially when they are based on saving a greasy buck at any cost or lack of, or inadequate oversight. Where does this crap end? Should we expect to turn up at Qantas Domestic Check in in a few years and tap a screen and be confronted with someone in WAW appearing on the screen and asking us what seat we want, how heavy our bag is, etc. etc.

It reminds me of the transition from 'gangs' on the Ramp to 2 people a flight and a 'pool' of people to draw from when there's a heavy flight. It has NEVER worked, it's the difference between 'efficiency on paper' and 'practical efficiency'.

A former GM from Qantas was so convinced of this, when he went to Virgin, he quite rightly got rid of the pooling system and ordered a 'gang' system be adopted. I'd love to hear what an experienced LC thinks of this WAW thing.

Besides, wasn't the whole idea of the IOC to have everyone co-located, not a group in WAW, a group in Timbuktu, etc. etc.

[AerialPerspective]

On a similar trajectory, there was a night in an Asian port where the loadsheet guys could not get the B767 in trim so the system would not allow them to proceed and print a loadsheet so they did a print screen and presented that to the flight crew. As is our way in the airline the loadsheet was properly checked and this discrepancy noted. A bit of reshuffling of bins sorted it with a bit of a delay.

Take home message - always check your loadsheet.

Well, just as a matter of interest, the Qantas system called Qantam and the one that replaced it, QUBE as well as Altea CM/FM developed by Qantas and maintained by Amadeus, will not allow a loadsheet to be produced if the aircraft is out of trim, if there are estimated weights still present, if check in isn't closed and finalised, etc. etc.

It might be interesting to note that god's gift to aviation, Australian Airlines and their half-arsed TAARSAN and LDP system, used for years before they were taken over by Qantas and seriously pushed as the solution to replace Qantam for International/QF at the time of the merger, by people who'd never been involved in international, would both let you 'sever' the link to check in if check in were running late and guess the number of pax and seating and produce a load sheet. In the QF system, and * added to a freight or mail weight would indicate estimate and it's presence would stop a LS being produced. An 'E' was used in LDP. Yep, you could have compartments full of weights of any quantity with an 'E' for estimate and when you hit the button, out came a load sheet regardless.

It reminds me of the day the B747 Fleet Captain was operating an Antarctic Charter. The TN people tried for an hour to get a LS out of that toy piece of crap, glorified spreadsheet until the crew hit the roof. They called International Load Control in T2 and a LS was on at the Gate in about 7 mins. I'm pretty sure that's what killed stone dead, any talk of adopting such an abortion for weight and balance. Sorry if I got the title wrong, I'm pretty sure it was Ray Heineger that was the PIC on the 744 that day (apologies if the spelling is wrong).

All Load Controllers and all Systems are not equal.

[AerialPerspective]

About a month ago, Alaska Air had two 737s (one an NG, the other a MAX) suffer tail strikes on takeoff from Seattle (SEA) withing a few minutes - both later attributed to gross errors in the TO weight calculation. Both were headed for the Hawaiian Islands so near Max TOW. Both did air turnbacks and landed safely back at SEA (with no damage reported after their returns). At about the same, time, the crew on a few other flights noticed 'sanity check' errors in their computer generated TO weight calculations. Alaska quickly grounded all their aircraft - it didn't take long to determine that an overnight software update had introduced an error into the TO weight calculation. It didn't take long to revert the s/w to the previous version, and they were able to resume normal ops.

Alaska reiterated to their crews the importance of always doing 'sanity checks' with the TO weight and CG calculations and not just accepting it on blind faith (a good practice in many areas).

Let me guess, I bet they were using SABRE. That thing is archaic and less capable than Air NZ's 50 year old CARINA system.