QF24 Takeoff Weight Discrepency
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Flyin' low and feeling mean
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF24 Takeoff Weight Discrepency
The most perplexing thing I find with this article is the fact that load control is in Warsaw, Poland 
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.
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.
Got away with it? No worries, she'll be right mate!
Sounds like normalization of deviance is alive and well in some people.
Sounds like normalization of deviance is alive and well in some people.
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?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Greenie a second pair of eyes (the crew) is not a bad idea and who in your scenario would do the load plan?
CC
CC
Last edited by Checklist Charlie; 24th Dec 2015 at 04:34. Reason: spelling!!
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
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
Provided of course the information from the gate and the leading hand are correct.
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.
The weak link...
...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.
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.
Last edited by Australopithecus; 24th Dec 2015 at 05:49.
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!
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!
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!
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!
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.