Weight and Balance issue/diversion

[tcasblue]

I came across this interesting diversion from a few years ago and initially wondered why they didn't continue to destination. But as a commenter on the site wrote, perhaps it would have been out of limits with a lesser fuel quantity....

"Incident: British Airways B744 at Toronto and Montreal on Jun 22nd 2016, mass and balance problemA British Airways Boeing 747-400, registration G-CIVJ performing flight BA-92 from Toronto,ON (Canada) to London Heathrow,EN (UK), was enroute at FL350 about 110nm eastnortheast of Montreal,QC (Canada) when the crew decided to turn around and divert to Montreal due to a cargo loading error. The aircraft landed safely on Montreal's runway 24R about 105 minutes after departure from Toronto and about 55 minutes after the decision to divert.The aircraft departed Montreal after about 2 hours on the ground and reached London with a delay of 3 hours.

A passenger reported cargo had been loaded into an invalid cargo bay. The aircraft diverted to have the cargo reloaded correctly.

According to information The Aviation Herald received a cargo container was erroneously loaded into bay C5 resulting in a mass and balance issue. The cargo was unloaded and correctly loaded."


Comment below....

"IMHO the cargo loading error could have been detected after the plane had left.
The cargo department informed the company and did a re-calculation with the actual cargo loads.
Probably the landing CG (with only reserve fuel on board) was out off limits, so they decided to make a safety landing with more fuel on boardat Montreal.(CG still in limits)"

[Fris B. Fairing]

You would expect the aeroplane to be in trim at Zero Fuel Weight.
How would a passenger know that a container had been incorrectly loaded?

[tcasblue]

You would expect the aeroplane to be in trim at Zero Fuel Weight.
How would a passenger know that a container had been incorrectly loaded?

Probably, the crew mentioned it to the pax and the pax relayed it along further, perhaps to AvHerald. I believe it was post-incident.

[DaveReidUK]

The diversion to Montreal was reportedly due to a security alert.

[CAEBr]

The diversion to Montreal was reportedly due to a security alert.

Probably because a "security alert" might attract less attention ?

[ChrisVJ]

Was on a flight Vancouver-Toronto-London a few years ago and they loaded 100 plus passengers in the front half of the aircraft and left the rear half totally empty. Felt really nervous but reckoned they must have balanced it with the baggage. Flew safely but is still seemed a curious way to do it. Filled the rest of the aircraft in Toronto.

[daved123]

Back in early 70's, finished work in company offices in AMS, tried to get a non-rev seat AMS-LHR
No chance for a non-rev seat on a Friday afternoon.
Eventually after bouncing round all the desks was suggested to try VIASA because they did not have traffic rights AMS-LHR,
Once boarded, they solved the W&B problem by seating one pax in aisle seats, both sides, alternate rows the length of the DC8.
Airborne, it was demonstrated what they understood by step-climb.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

I came across this interesting diversion from a few years ago and initially wondered why they didn't continue to destination. But as a commenter on the site wrote, perhaps it would have been out of limits with a lesser fuel quantity....

"Incident: British Airways B744 at Toronto and Montreal on Jun 22nd 2016, mass and balance problemA British Airways Boeing 747-400, registration G-CIVJ performing flight BA-92 from Toronto,ON (Canada) to London Heathrow,EN (UK), was enroute at FL350 about 110nm eastnortheast of Montreal,QC (Canada) when the crew decided to turn around and divert to Montreal due to a cargo loading error. The aircraft landed safely on Montreal's runway 24R about 105 minutes after departure from Toronto and about 55 minutes after the decision to divert.The aircraft departed Montreal after about 2 hours on the ground and reached London with a delay of 3 hours.

A passenger reported cargo had been loaded into an invalid cargo bay. The aircraft diverted to have the cargo reloaded correctly.

According to information The Aviation Herald received a cargo container was erroneously loaded into bay C5 resulting in a mass and balance issue. The cargo was unloaded and correctly loaded."


Comment below....

"IMHO the cargo loading error could have been detected after the plane had left.
The cargo department informed the company and did a re-calculation with the actual cargo loads.
Probably the landing CG (with only reserve fuel on board) was out off limits, so they decided to make a safety landing with more fuel on boardat Montreal.(CG still in limits)"

Doubt it. You'd have to be miles off with a misplaced ULD. I know someone who nearly did it, but was picked up and even then was still in perf envelope.

[Fris B. Fairing]

a cargo container was erroneously loaded into bay C5
Bay C5 does not relate to any B744 ULD position that I remember.
Furthermore, the aeroplane must have been in trim at ZFW i.e. with zero fuel.

[sb_sfo]

Possibly a ULD was emptied and manually stacked in the bulk pit? Still, not a lot of difference.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Bay C5 does not relate to any B744 ULD position that I remember.
Furthermore, the aeroplane must have been in trim at ZFW i.e. with zero fuel.

Correct.

You can't fit a container in Cpt 5.

Would love to the LS on this. I do know of a flight that was massively out of trim as engineering had put a ridiculously heavy pallet in Cpt1 and didn't bother telling anyone.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Possibly a ULD was emptied and manually stacked in the bulk pit? Still, not a lot of difference.

Can't fit any container empty or not in C5. You could probably slot an empty PLA in there if you were mad enough.

[sb_sfo]

I was speaking of emptying a loaded ULD and stacking the contents in the bulk pit