Tiger Loads Bags onto wrong flights
pilotshorvath,
and
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.
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.
I could be wrong, and if I am, I'm more than happy to be corrected.
Could any ground crew out there confirm/deny this summary?!
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.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Response to pilotshovarth and captaintunedog777
Firstly, I said that
pilotshorvath says
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 -
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 2nd Nov 2009 at 09:59.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew I'd be taken out of context...
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---
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???
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....
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....
1---
Are you telling us or asking us?
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.
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....
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
.
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
) so I'd be interested to hear more.
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
. 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
) so I'd be interested to hear more.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
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 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.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last Man Standing
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 !
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 !
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weight (Bags) & Balance (Trim)
"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)
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.
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)
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.
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please, I Insist
Pilotshorvath, please, I insist.......
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 '
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!
On a further note,I am pleased to see you broke close to even on the cup.
'Safe Horse Racing For All '
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Truth Behind The Incident
Apparently there was not a mistake with the baggage uplifted after all, the mistake was with an incorrectly uplifted freight container loaded full of Danish Butter !
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.