Overloaded Planes - QF 87 VH-QPJ
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
300 pax @ 86kg = 25.8 T
lets say that according to the stats that 50% of people are fat
150 pax @ 95kg = 14.25 T + 150 pax @ 86kg = 12.9 T == 27.15 t
That little fact means could be 1.35 T over weight if the calc was done on standard weights.
Plus how many people would dare to carry on more than the allocated 7 kg of hand luggage
lets say that according to the stats that 50% of people are fat
150 pax @ 95kg = 14.25 T + 150 pax @ 86kg = 12.9 T == 27.15 t
That little fact means could be 1.35 T over weight if the calc was done on standard weights.
Plus how many people would dare to carry on more than the allocated 7 kg of hand luggage
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overloaded Planes - Pilot Responsibility
Overloaded Planes - Pilot Responsibility:
The issue is for all pilots, the following reg, with an immediate fine of $5000 - like it or lump it. This type of infringement could also leave the AOC holder with a "show cause" notice and the loss of the AOC.
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 138
Pilot to comply with requirements etc of aircraft's flight manual etc (1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) If a flight manual has not been issued for an Australian aircraft and, under the relevant airworthiness standards for the aircraft, the information and instructions that would otherwise be contained in an aircraft's flight manual are to be displayed either wholly on a placard, or partly on a placard and partly in another document, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out:
(a) on the placard; or
(b) on the placard or in the other document.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
The issue is for all pilots, the following reg, with an immediate fine of $5000 - like it or lump it. This type of infringement could also leave the AOC holder with a "show cause" notice and the loss of the AOC.
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 138
Pilot to comply with requirements etc of aircraft's flight manual etc (1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) If a flight manual has not been issued for an Australian aircraft and, under the relevant airworthiness standards for the aircraft, the information and instructions that would otherwise be contained in an aircraft's flight manual are to be displayed either wholly on a placard, or partly on a placard and partly in another document, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out:
(a) on the placard; or
(b) on the placard or in the other document.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overloaded Planes - Pilot Responsibility
For a bit more casual reading and the importance of "the rules". Bothe regs together now go to anoter $5000:
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 233
Responsibility of pilot in command before flight (1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a flight if he or she has not received evidence, and taken such action as is necessary to ensure, that:
(a) the instruments and equipment required for the particular type of operation to be undertaken are installed in the aircraft and are functioning properly;
(b) the gross weight of the aircraft does not exceed the limitations fixed by or under regulation 235 and is such that flight performance in accordance with the standards specified by CASA for the type of operation to be undertaken is possible under the prevailing conditions; and
(c) any directions of CASA with respect to the loading of the aircraft given under regulation 235 have been complied with;
(d) the fuel supplies are sufficient for the particular flight;
(e) the required operating and other crew members are on board and in a fit state to perform their duties;
(f) the air traffic control instructions have been complied with;
(g) the aircraft is safe for flight in all respects; and
(h) the latest editions of the aeronautical maps, charts and other aeronautical information and instructions, published in AIP or by a person approved in writing, that are applicable:
(i) to the route to be flown; and
(ii) to any alternative route that may be flown on that flight;
are carried in the aircraft and are readily accessible to the flight crew.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(1A) An approval under paragraph (1) (h) may be given subject to such conditions as are specified in the instrument of approval.
(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft engaged in international air navigation must not commence a flight if the pilot has not completed an approved flight preparation form certifying that the pilot is satisfied of the matters specified in subregulation (1).
Penalty: 5 penalty units.
(3) An operator must keep a completed flight preparation form for a period of 6 months.
Penalty: 5 penalty units.
(4) An offence against subregulation (1), (2) or (3) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 233
Responsibility of pilot in command before flight (1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a flight if he or she has not received evidence, and taken such action as is necessary to ensure, that:
(a) the instruments and equipment required for the particular type of operation to be undertaken are installed in the aircraft and are functioning properly;
(b) the gross weight of the aircraft does not exceed the limitations fixed by or under regulation 235 and is such that flight performance in accordance with the standards specified by CASA for the type of operation to be undertaken is possible under the prevailing conditions; and
(c) any directions of CASA with respect to the loading of the aircraft given under regulation 235 have been complied with;
(d) the fuel supplies are sufficient for the particular flight;
(e) the required operating and other crew members are on board and in a fit state to perform their duties;
(f) the air traffic control instructions have been complied with;
(g) the aircraft is safe for flight in all respects; and
(h) the latest editions of the aeronautical maps, charts and other aeronautical information and instructions, published in AIP or by a person approved in writing, that are applicable:
(i) to the route to be flown; and
(ii) to any alternative route that may be flown on that flight;
are carried in the aircraft and are readily accessible to the flight crew.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(1A) An approval under paragraph (1) (h) may be given subject to such conditions as are specified in the instrument of approval.
(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft engaged in international air navigation must not commence a flight if the pilot has not completed an approved flight preparation form certifying that the pilot is satisfied of the matters specified in subregulation (1).
Penalty: 5 penalty units.
(3) An operator must keep a completed flight preparation form for a period of 6 months.
Penalty: 5 penalty units.
(4) An offence against subregulation (1), (2) or (3) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reg 235
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 235
Take-off and landing of aircraft etc (1) CASA may, for the purposes of these regulations, give directions setting out the method of estimating, with respect to an aircraft at anytime:
(a) the weight of the aircraft, together with the weight of all persons and goods (including fuel) on board the aircraft, at that time; and
(b) the centre of gravity of the aircraft at that time.
(2) CASA may, for the purpose of ensuring the safety of air navigation, give directions setting out the manner of determining, with respect to a proposed flight of an aircraft:
(a) a maximum weight, being a weight less than the maximum take-off weight of the aircraft; or
(b) a maximum weight, being a weight less than the maximum landing weight of the aircraft;
that the gross weight of the aircraft at take-off or landing, as the case may be, is not to exceed.
(2A) A person must not contravene a direction under subregulation (1) or (2).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) A manner of determining a maximum weight referred to in subregulation (2) shall be such as to take into account such of the following considerations as CASA considers appropriate:
(a) the type of aircraft;
(b) the kind of operations to be carried out during the flight;
(c) the performance of the aircraft in configurations in which it is likely to be flown and with faults that are likely to occur;
(d) the meteorological conditions at the aerodrome at which the aircraft is to take off or land;
(e) the altitude of the aerodrome at which the aircraft is to take off or land;
(f) the aerodrome dimensions in the direction in which the aircraft is to take off or land;
(g) the material of which the surface of the aerodrome in the direction in which the aircraft is to take off or land is constituted and the condition and slope of that surface;
(h) the presence of obstacles in the vicinity of the flight path along which the aircraft is to take off, approach or land;
(i) the anticipated meteorological conditions over the intended route to be flown by the aircraft after take-off and over planned divergencies from that route; and
(j) the altitude of the terrain along and on either side of the intended route to be flown by the aircraft after take-off and of planned divergencies from that route.
(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to take off if its gross weight exceeds its maximum take-off weight or, if a lesser weight determined in accordance with a direction under subregulation (2) is applicable to the take-off, that lesser weight.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(5) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to take off if its gross weight exceeds, by more than the weight of fuel that would normally be used in flying to its next landing place or planned alternative aerodrome, its maximum landing weight or, if a lesser weight determined in accordance with a direction under subregulation (2) is applicable to the landing at that place or aerodrome, that lesser weight.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(6) The pilot in command of an aircraft, must not land the aircraft if its gross weight exceeds its maximum landing weight or, if a lesser weight determined in accordance with a direction under subregulation (2) is applicable to the landing, that lesser weight.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(7) CASA may, for the purpose of ensuring the safety of air navigation, give directions with respect to the method of loading of persons and goods (including fuel) on aircraft.
(7A) A person must not contravene a direction under subregulation (7).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(8) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to take off or land if a direction given under this regulation, about the loading of the aircraft has not been complied with.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(9) The pilot in command must ensure that the load of an aircraft throughout a flight shall be so distributed that the centre of gravity of the aircraft falls within the limitations specified in its certificate of airworthiness or its flight manual.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(10) A direction given under this regulation does not have effect in relation to a person until it has been served on the person.
(12) An offence against subregulation (2A), (4), (5), (6), (7A), (8) or (9) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
(13) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (6) if the landing was made in an emergency.
Note A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subregulation (13) (see subsection 13.3 (3) of the Criminal Code ).
Take-off and landing of aircraft etc (1) CASA may, for the purposes of these regulations, give directions setting out the method of estimating, with respect to an aircraft at anytime:
(a) the weight of the aircraft, together with the weight of all persons and goods (including fuel) on board the aircraft, at that time; and
(b) the centre of gravity of the aircraft at that time.
(2) CASA may, for the purpose of ensuring the safety of air navigation, give directions setting out the manner of determining, with respect to a proposed flight of an aircraft:
(a) a maximum weight, being a weight less than the maximum take-off weight of the aircraft; or
(b) a maximum weight, being a weight less than the maximum landing weight of the aircraft;
that the gross weight of the aircraft at take-off or landing, as the case may be, is not to exceed.
(2A) A person must not contravene a direction under subregulation (1) or (2).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) A manner of determining a maximum weight referred to in subregulation (2) shall be such as to take into account such of the following considerations as CASA considers appropriate:
(a) the type of aircraft;
(b) the kind of operations to be carried out during the flight;
(c) the performance of the aircraft in configurations in which it is likely to be flown and with faults that are likely to occur;
(d) the meteorological conditions at the aerodrome at which the aircraft is to take off or land;
(e) the altitude of the aerodrome at which the aircraft is to take off or land;
(f) the aerodrome dimensions in the direction in which the aircraft is to take off or land;
(g) the material of which the surface of the aerodrome in the direction in which the aircraft is to take off or land is constituted and the condition and slope of that surface;
(h) the presence of obstacles in the vicinity of the flight path along which the aircraft is to take off, approach or land;
(i) the anticipated meteorological conditions over the intended route to be flown by the aircraft after take-off and over planned divergencies from that route; and
(j) the altitude of the terrain along and on either side of the intended route to be flown by the aircraft after take-off and of planned divergencies from that route.
(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to take off if its gross weight exceeds its maximum take-off weight or, if a lesser weight determined in accordance with a direction under subregulation (2) is applicable to the take-off, that lesser weight.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(5) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to take off if its gross weight exceeds, by more than the weight of fuel that would normally be used in flying to its next landing place or planned alternative aerodrome, its maximum landing weight or, if a lesser weight determined in accordance with a direction under subregulation (2) is applicable to the landing at that place or aerodrome, that lesser weight.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(6) The pilot in command of an aircraft, must not land the aircraft if its gross weight exceeds its maximum landing weight or, if a lesser weight determined in accordance with a direction under subregulation (2) is applicable to the landing, that lesser weight.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(7) CASA may, for the purpose of ensuring the safety of air navigation, give directions with respect to the method of loading of persons and goods (including fuel) on aircraft.
(7A) A person must not contravene a direction under subregulation (7).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(8) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to take off or land if a direction given under this regulation, about the loading of the aircraft has not been complied with.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(9) The pilot in command must ensure that the load of an aircraft throughout a flight shall be so distributed that the centre of gravity of the aircraft falls within the limitations specified in its certificate of airworthiness or its flight manual.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(10) A direction given under this regulation does not have effect in relation to a person until it has been served on the person.
(12) An offence against subregulation (2A), (4), (5), (6), (7A), (8) or (9) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
(13) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (6) if the landing was made in an emergency.
Note A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subregulation (13) (see subsection 13.3 (3) of the Criminal Code ).
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what about the weight of crew? Most Asian carriers have a nice compliment of size 6 lassies attending to your onboard requirements, rather pleasant indeed. Even the mincing male attendants are quite slim. But then you have JQ and even DJ these days who hire large heffa's to care for the pax. Half of them can't fit their ass down the isle unless turning sideways, very unsavory to the eye plus an additional weight factor for the sector flown. I was actually shocked last trip I flew with DJ, 3 big fatties serving tea and bikkies, and 2 of them had their fat asses hitting my shoulder everytime they squeezed past. I don't know how well they could react in an emergency?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
A-380
500 Pax all over 100 kg with hand carry, so 7000kg at least
Each suitcase just a touch over 20kg and so on
Freight just a bit short weighted by a mate in Cargo
Yulara 40 degree, standard weights for the European tour group, weigh the Japanese in pairs as they are embarrased on their own.
Told at Cairns, "tight day capt, 3kg off MTOW", year right in 160 tons??
Trucks on the highway, +20 tons
Teenagers with 7 in the Toyota car
Shall I stop now?
500 Pax all over 100 kg with hand carry, so 7000kg at least
Each suitcase just a touch over 20kg and so on
Freight just a bit short weighted by a mate in Cargo
Yulara 40 degree, standard weights for the European tour group, weigh the Japanese in pairs as they are embarrased on their own.
Told at Cairns, "tight day capt, 3kg off MTOW", year right in 160 tons??
Trucks on the highway, +20 tons
Teenagers with 7 in the Toyota car
Shall I stop now?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OverWeight + casa
All that's good, but the issue is simply:
In GA the operator, when caught puts the AOC in jepardy but the airlines - WEEEELL it really doesn't matter - a few kg here a few there - So what.
We must have the AFM's adhered to. My understanding is the MTOW and the MLanding Wt gives the difference in the ability of the airframe to deliver both max. loads, performance and structural stability. This is the extra that the operator needs - just burn off fuel load to meet MLW.
In the case of a PA31-350, with [AOC Holder in South Australia], there was a 350 kg overload. This in percentage terms is a 40 odd % OVERLOAD. No wonder the turbos were not lasting. The manifests showed - surprise, surprise - Correct weight.
Pilots ordered by AOC holder to fly the aircraft - casa - not interested!!
Aircraft airframe likely damaged.
In GA the operator, when caught puts the AOC in jepardy but the airlines - WEEEELL it really doesn't matter - a few kg here a few there - So what.
We must have the AFM's adhered to. My understanding is the MTOW and the MLanding Wt gives the difference in the ability of the airframe to deliver both max. loads, performance and structural stability. This is the extra that the operator needs - just burn off fuel load to meet MLW.
In the case of a PA31-350, with [AOC Holder in South Australia], there was a 350 kg overload. This in percentage terms is a 40 odd % OVERLOAD. No wonder the turbos were not lasting. The manifests showed - surprise, surprise - Correct weight.
Pilots ordered by AOC holder to fly the aircraft - casa - not interested!!
Aircraft airframe likely damaged.
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
Each suitcase just a touch over 20kg and so on
Freight just a bit short weighted by a mate in Cargo
Freight just a bit short weighted by a mate in Cargo
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OverWeight + casa
This report has just been released on an A321 in Manchester England, and draws attention to the issues surrounding degraded performance and weight limitations.
Makes interesting reading and only 17,000 kg underestimate on MTOW.
This, although performance was degraded due to incorrect entries by the pilot, this is in Aus terms, a pilot error and a strict liability offence.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...KO%2012-11.pdf
Makes interesting reading and only 17,000 kg underestimate on MTOW.
This, although performance was degraded due to incorrect entries by the pilot, this is in Aus terms, a pilot error and a strict liability offence.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...KO%2012-11.pdf
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 24th Dec 2011 at 01:35. Reason: Add MTOW
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 74
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it matter ....
I think it's been done to death, and we all agree, that a 1,000 Kg overweight incident is neither here nor there in the "ability of the aircraft to fly" scheme of things.
What is the issue, IMHO, is the attempt to sweep the incident under the carpet.
If the guys unloading the aircraft had of filed the appropriate report at the time, the incident could of been quickly investigated, the cause of the error found and corrected, whether it be a system error or human error, lessons would of been learnt and the world would of continued on its merry journey around the sun.
If we all agree that there is no "ability to fly" issues with the Bus being 1,000Kg overweight, yet if the same aircraft was 40,000Kg overweight it would have, to be diplomatic, severe performance issues.
So somewhere between 1,000 Kg and 40,000 Kg there is a "billowing column of smoke just past the end of the runway" line at XX,000 Kg.
The issue is, IMHO, that a system that lets 1,000 Kg through today could let that XX,000 kg through tomorrow.
When an error (letting the 1,000 Kg through today) is detected, it behoves one and all, every person involved, every department involved, as well as the company to loudly say "We stuffed up", to give thanks nothing serious happened, to learn the lessons and apply the remedial action to lessen the chance of the same thing happening again. Tomorrow it might not be 1,000 Kg.....It might be XX,000 - 1 Kg.............OR it might be XX,000 +1 Kg.
ST
What is the issue, IMHO, is the attempt to sweep the incident under the carpet.
If the guys unloading the aircraft had of filed the appropriate report at the time, the incident could of been quickly investigated, the cause of the error found and corrected, whether it be a system error or human error, lessons would of been learnt and the world would of continued on its merry journey around the sun.
If we all agree that there is no "ability to fly" issues with the Bus being 1,000Kg overweight, yet if the same aircraft was 40,000Kg overweight it would have, to be diplomatic, severe performance issues.
So somewhere between 1,000 Kg and 40,000 Kg there is a "billowing column of smoke just past the end of the runway" line at XX,000 Kg.
The issue is, IMHO, that a system that lets 1,000 Kg through today could let that XX,000 kg through tomorrow.
When an error (letting the 1,000 Kg through today) is detected, it behoves one and all, every person involved, every department involved, as well as the company to loudly say "We stuffed up", to give thanks nothing serious happened, to learn the lessons and apply the remedial action to lessen the chance of the same thing happening again. Tomorrow it might not be 1,000 Kg.....It might be XX,000 - 1 Kg.............OR it might be XX,000 +1 Kg.
ST
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it matter
Of course it does.
In a single instace, I agree - No, when every thing then goes RIGHT
What if, there is wind shear encountered at the DER point and the load was not well stowed and out of W&B for the aircraft.
A smoking hole [or whoops, we just missed that one - Sunshine!!]
This is no laughing matter, nor one to put under the carpet, but something from the bug-smasher to A380 that is a proper and correct consideration.
Are you sure that the A320 that you are flying has not had 80 incidents before and this one has "Literally broken the airframes back"
Is yours the "smoking hole"????
In a single instace, I agree - No, when every thing then goes RIGHT
What if, there is wind shear encountered at the DER point and the load was not well stowed and out of W&B for the aircraft.
A smoking hole [or whoops, we just missed that one - Sunshine!!]
This is no laughing matter, nor one to put under the carpet, but something from the bug-smasher to A380 that is a proper and correct consideration.
Are you sure that the A320 that you are flying has not had 80 incidents before and this one has "Literally broken the airframes back"
Is yours the "smoking hole"????
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 24th Dec 2011 at 07:05. Reason: Typo
Whilst the systemic error needs attention, a 0.43% overload (that's less than half of 1%) isn't going to break the bank, me thinks.
Same situation, PIC not aware of load. According to CAA/CASA, NO excuse! "Rip it up".
If the guys unloading the aircraft had filed the appropriate report
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't read the report for a while. But from what I've heard the a/c was at either MTOW or MZFW when planning. There was a pallet of cargo on standby due to weight issues. It was shown on the load instruction and the ramp had been told that it had been offloaded. The ramp apparently gave a clearance to Load Control and said that the position where that cargo would have been was a no-fit. So therefore load control and crew are thinking the cargo has been offloaded. I'm not sure who found the fault, I think it may have been when SYD cargo was asking where the offloaded pallet was. It was then found in HKG.
The Load Control system wouldn't have produced a load sheet if the aircraft was overweight or out of trim etc. The Load Controller got a kick in the backside. I understand that their workload was heavy that day and that may have also contributed to this. Also communication to the ramp is attrocious.
Since this incident when I plan something if it is overweight, I never have any cargo on stand by. It's either on or it's off. As by maximising uplift doesn't get you a pat on the back from QF, but by trying to and making a mistake they're very quick to kick in the ass.
Personally I've adopted approaches that will cover my ass and not give me, the crew or the ramp guys loading any headaches. As the communication systems are so bad it's normally pretty hard to get on to the ramp guys loading, until they call you.
The Load Control system wouldn't have produced a load sheet if the aircraft was overweight or out of trim etc. The Load Controller got a kick in the backside. I understand that their workload was heavy that day and that may have also contributed to this. Also communication to the ramp is attrocious.
Since this incident when I plan something if it is overweight, I never have any cargo on stand by. It's either on or it's off. As by maximising uplift doesn't get you a pat on the back from QF, but by trying to and making a mistake they're very quick to kick in the ass.
Personally I've adopted approaches that will cover my ass and not give me, the crew or the ramp guys loading any headaches. As the communication systems are so bad it's normally pretty hard to get on to the ramp guys loading, until they call you.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what about the weight of crew? Most Asian carriers have a nice compliment of size 6 lassies attending to your onboard requirements, rather pleasant indeed. Even the mincing male attendants are quite slim. But then you have JQ and even DJ these days who hire large heffa's to care for the pax. Half of them can't fit their ass down the isle unless turning sideways, very unsavory to the eye plus an additional weight factor for the sector flown. I was actually shocked last trip I flew with DJ, 3 big fatties serving tea and bikkies, and 2 of them had their fat asses hitting my shoulder everytime they squeezed past. I don't know how well they could react in an emergency?
W@nker! 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None of you will ever reach the cracker of them all the B747/200 out of DRW after Tracy. I believe the record for PAX ever with around 723, plus assorted bags, pets (hidden) and whatever they could squeeze into the hold. I believe the aircraft was under the command of Capt Phil Stevens, who years later told be me, he basically held his breath, and prayed to The Almighty for all the help He could give. It worked.
B747/200 out of DRW after Tracy.
