Qantas fly A330 over the MTOW
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
In respect of looking after staff..
Herb Kelleher said it best
Herb Kelleher said it best
If the employees come first, then they're happy, ... A motivated employee treats the customer well. The customer is happy so they keep coming back, which pleases the shareholders. It's not one of the enduring Green mysteries of all time, it is just the way it works
Nunc est bibendum
Keg & Ken , you are missing the point. Keeping the the share holders happy or providing them with maximum return is the primary role for the CEO of a public company. You can't blame them if they are just following their job description.
Sherm.
(I'm a little freaked out that Ken and I agree on this!
)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Average after several years of compiling data may be 77kg. That is the nature of statistics, it tends closer to the average the more data you collect.
That doesn't mean in any way that a plane load of overweight tourists from the USA will average 77kgs.
Or that any particular flight on any particular day may not be overweight. Certain sectors eg peak MEL-SYD weekday flights most business travelers bring carryon and don't check their luggage. The carryon is certainly not within weight limits (rarely weighed and enforced). Multiply an extra 5-10kg per pax by 250.
I remember once carrying a large bunch of Japanese Sumo wrestlers. They had to block out adjacent seats just so they could sit down. But they were boarded using standard weights. And those standard weights were used for takeoff performance data. There should have been an extra couple of tone in that for sure.
The reason standard weights are permitted is that there is enough fat in the performance limits that a small overweight which WILL occur from time to time using standard weights will not have any material impact. Even WITH an engine failure.
The article is correct about internal systems being inadequate, but not correct in its suggestion that this particular incident possibly posed a danger to flight safety. I would suggest that you would have to go at least 10-20 tonne over before you would really start to worry about flight safety.
Having said that, if they hope to ensure a fix to internal systems to prevent future recurrences of possibly larger magnitudes, they probably feel the need to play the safety card, and I don't have a problem with that at all.
That doesn't mean in any way that a plane load of overweight tourists from the USA will average 77kgs.
Or that any particular flight on any particular day may not be overweight. Certain sectors eg peak MEL-SYD weekday flights most business travelers bring carryon and don't check their luggage. The carryon is certainly not within weight limits (rarely weighed and enforced). Multiply an extra 5-10kg per pax by 250.
I remember once carrying a large bunch of Japanese Sumo wrestlers. They had to block out adjacent seats just so they could sit down. But they were boarded using standard weights. And those standard weights were used for takeoff performance data. There should have been an extra couple of tone in that for sure.
The reason standard weights are permitted is that there is enough fat in the performance limits that a small overweight which WILL occur from time to time using standard weights will not have any material impact. Even WITH an engine failure.
The article is correct about internal systems being inadequate, but not correct in its suggestion that this particular incident possibly posed a danger to flight safety. I would suggest that you would have to go at least 10-20 tonne over before you would really start to worry about flight safety.
Having said that, if they hope to ensure a fix to internal systems to prevent future recurrences of possibly larger magnitudes, they probably feel the need to play the safety card, and I don't have a problem with that at all.
Sherm
I hear what you say.
I just think most shareholders are not really interested in the costs of maintaining a healthy AOC. To them, it is simply bottom line either in the form of dividens or share value. Partly for this reason I think airlines should be represented on the stock market in a different class or form of share holding. (Perhaps Nuclear Power companies could fall into this bracket as well )
I don't know the answers ! Except that nobody wants "Frisbees or manhole covers".
Sorry for the thread creep, I enjoyed the read.
I hear what you say.
I just think most shareholders are not really interested in the costs of maintaining a healthy AOC. To them, it is simply bottom line either in the form of dividens or share value. Partly for this reason I think airlines should be represented on the stock market in a different class or form of share holding. (Perhaps Nuclear Power companies could fall into this bracket as well )
I don't know the answers ! Except that nobody wants "Frisbees or manhole covers".
Sorry for the thread creep, I enjoyed the read.
VBPCGUY
The weight shown in the system was for the lighter substitute pallet so as far as the DC system was concerned the aircraft was under MTOW and there would have been no problem producing a loadsheet.
(I got drawn to this thread by burning ears with all this talk of Frisbees)
If the aircraft was overweight how was paperwork generated???
(I got drawn to this thread by burning ears with all this talk of Frisbees)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Past the rabbit proof fence
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact is a fly by wire aircraft will cope better than most to CofG issues. Lets not forget that the ramp staff are not working their way through Medical school - you get what you pay for!
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Certain sectors eg peak MEL-SYD weekday flights most business travelers bring carryon and don't check their luggage. The carryon is certainly not within weight limits (rarely weighed and enforced). Multiply an extra 5-10kg per pax by 250.
PS: Won't be long until they wake up to hand luggage being another source of revenue...
PS: Won't be long until they wake up to hand luggage being another source of revenue...
Couldn't have said it better myself metro man.
Last year my spend was $ 30K with QF for myself and my staff.
This year that spend is with Virgin for domestic and Air Asia for international.
You already stated the reason. At least with these I get what I paid for.
If your so called full service airline is deliberately busting weight limits, skimping on maintenance, training, and customer service, and forcing you to check your own baggage, then why not fly a low cost carrier that does none of this ????
Last year my spend was $ 30K with QF for myself and my staff.
This year that spend is with Virgin for domestic and Air Asia for international.
You already stated the reason. At least with these I get what I paid for.
If your so called full service airline is deliberately busting weight limits, skimping on maintenance, training, and customer service, and forcing you to check your own baggage, then why not fly a low cost carrier that does none of this ????
Agreed, there has to be a noticable difference for the extra money. I fly a mixture of low cost and full service. When I fly full service my expectations are higher. If my hold baggage is a couple of kilos over I don't expect to be charged, I expect better on time performance, better seat pitch and a reasonable meal. If I'm not getting a better product, why pay a higher fare ?
When travelling low cost I expect to be charged for everything and plan around it, also I much more tolerant of small delays and less convenient times.
As long as I got what I paid for I'm happy. Having flown domestically in America, out of my own pocket I'd opt for low cost. Full service standards have come down so far it's not worth paying extra for.
When travelling low cost I expect to be charged for everything and plan around it, also I much more tolerant of small delays and less convenient times.
As long as I got what I paid for I'm happy. Having flown domestically in America, out of my own pocket I'd opt for low cost. Full service standards have come down so far it's not worth paying extra for.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown domestically in America, out of my own pocket I'd opt for low cost.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arkmak, you realy believe that Airasia, doesn't bust weight limits, skimp on maintenance, training, etc. Just look at the current news articles on Indigo Air pilots and you will see how low Asian LCC's will go to save a dollar. The main pilot concerned landed the aircraft nosewheel first, not just once but many times. Look at the airasia incident that nearly crashed into the hills at Coolangatta. What price do you put on the lives of your staff and yourself.
In Australia, LCC's pilot standards are high, not so overseas.
In Australia, LCC's pilot standards are high, not so overseas.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at the airasia incident that nearly crashed into the hills at Coolangatta.
Originally Posted by ATSB
During an approach in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), the aircraft went below the radar lowest safe altitude. On the previous day, a similar occurrence in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) occurred involving the same aircraft type. Subsequently the ATSB was notified of another similar occurrence involving the same aircraft type on 29 May 2010. The investigation is continuing.
A report has not yet been released for this investigation.
A report has not yet been released for this investigation.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a further thought or two to get this back on track.....
Do not ever make the mistake of using anecdotes or one-off events to justify a point of view or to condemn an operation. This is exactly the strategy used by amateur managers who've never been near the pointy end of things whether on the ramp, the cabin or the cockpit.
The whole point of having black letter rules is that someone will always have an anecdote or dodgy "data" to justify what they want to do. For example let's say that a carrier were to have notoriously non-compliant crew rest facilities on a long haul type and were to use the existence of that non-compliant facility to justify horrible duty schedule with long back of the clock operations. And lets say that the safety and ops managers were to get very very defensive when questioned about the fact that other than being better than standing-up, the facilities provided for "rest" meet no other requirement of the FOM or the CARs or even the exemption to the CARs. Let's say their response were to be "we're developing a fatigue management system and in any case we've had very very few written complaints". Are they off the hook because on any given day the system vaguely seems to work? NOT AT ALL. The regulations for crew rest are stark and easily understood. Management (and crews) are required to follow the law, not "whatever works on any given day".
If the Quality system cannot pick up a 10kg overload who's to say that it could pick up 100 kg or 10,000 kg? Not possible. That's why it is a condition of getting and maintaining an AOC that the Quality system works. Otherwise it's like flying an approach with either 4 reds or 4 whites on the PAPI. You no longer have any guidance as to your glide-slope and are reduced to guessing.
Take-home message is that having a safety and quality system that works some of the time for some of the operation is like using a contaminated syringe. You have no idea at all what might happen next.
Sorry for the sermon....this stuff can cost lives and the fact that it didn't in the case of the 330 doesn't in any way diminish the significance of the lapse in quality assurance.
Safe flying
Sherm
Do not ever make the mistake of using anecdotes or one-off events to justify a point of view or to condemn an operation. This is exactly the strategy used by amateur managers who've never been near the pointy end of things whether on the ramp, the cabin or the cockpit.
The whole point of having black letter rules is that someone will always have an anecdote or dodgy "data" to justify what they want to do. For example let's say that a carrier were to have notoriously non-compliant crew rest facilities on a long haul type and were to use the existence of that non-compliant facility to justify horrible duty schedule with long back of the clock operations. And lets say that the safety and ops managers were to get very very defensive when questioned about the fact that other than being better than standing-up, the facilities provided for "rest" meet no other requirement of the FOM or the CARs or even the exemption to the CARs. Let's say their response were to be "we're developing a fatigue management system and in any case we've had very very few written complaints". Are they off the hook because on any given day the system vaguely seems to work? NOT AT ALL. The regulations for crew rest are stark and easily understood. Management (and crews) are required to follow the law, not "whatever works on any given day".
If the Quality system cannot pick up a 10kg overload who's to say that it could pick up 100 kg or 10,000 kg? Not possible. That's why it is a condition of getting and maintaining an AOC that the Quality system works. Otherwise it's like flying an approach with either 4 reds or 4 whites on the PAPI. You no longer have any guidance as to your glide-slope and are reduced to guessing.
Take-home message is that having a safety and quality system that works some of the time for some of the operation is like using a contaminated syringe. You have no idea at all what might happen next.
Sorry for the sermon....this stuff can cost lives and the fact that it didn't in the case of the 330 doesn't in any way diminish the significance of the lapse in quality assurance.
Safe flying
Sherm
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 74
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HF3000
The article is correct about internal systems being inadequate, but not correct in its suggestion that this particular incident possibly posed a danger to flight safety. I would suggest that you would have to go at least 10-20 tonne over before you would really start to worry about flight safety.
As Donald Rumsfeld said "because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. ... But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
In this instance, we know that any given passenger does not weigh 77Kg, 83Kg, 16 Kg or any other specified figure, and this is allowed and calculated by the aircraft manufacturer.
However, it is assumed that we DO KNOW how much the freight weighs, and it matters not if it is 1 Kg out or 25 tonnes out, if the "system" can get it wrong on this flight by 1 Kg, then on the next flight it can just as easily get it wrong by 10 Kg / 100 Kg / 1000 Kg / 10,000 Kg.
THAT IS WHAT CAUSES THE DANGER TO FLIGHT SAFETY, NOT THE 884 KG THIS FLIGHT WAS OVERWEIGHT.
Originally Posted by ALAEA Fed Sec
Why don't those in Qantas Management understand this?
Why does CASA sit back and allow it to happen?
Why does CASA sit back and allow it to happen?
ST
