Then the aircraft wasn't 'overloaded' and remaining within the W&B envelope is just a rule of thumb. (I could have sworn that exceeding the W&B envelope is a strict liability offence for some reason...)

(Coincidentally, for the first time I've ever heard in on a commercial jet, an announcement was made, while we were disembarking, that the rear passengers had to quickly move to the front of the aircraft because there was a risk it would tip back on its tail. Australian carrier. 21st century. I kid you not.)

Not uncommon to unload a dash 8 as quick as possible to avoid it getting tail heavy . A new casa inspector lost it over standard weights for bags and pax , plus carry on not weighed and rang the shonky bell . Proceeded direct to his boss with his findings only to be told to let it go .

The aircraft I was disembarking wasn't a Dash 8...

Such naivete!

The new CASA inspector hopefully now realises that the rules are for the powerless to comply with; optional for others.

LMC: A key point the TV show didn't highlight was The Dublin Commoners' base salary was already restored to pre-covid levels with a nice 15% pay rise, in 2022 FYI.

Check the Australian for the details. Brief excerpt:

"Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce has pocketed a 15 per cent pay rise in 2022 after his base salary was restored to pre-pandemic levels.

Despite poor on-time performance, lost baggage and rising fares, new disclosures show Mr Joyce’s total pay from $1.98m to $2.27m in the 12 months to June 30.

However, this remains significantly below Mr Joyce’s pay before the Covid-19 pandemic, when his earnings hit $10m after bonuses.

Other executives have also had their remuneration increased, the new disclosures show. In particular, Qantas chief financial officer Vanessa Hudson has seen her total salary rise $236,000 to $1.44m."

Happy Landings:ok:

I meant in general. Standard weights and allowances look pretty svelte compared to the actual appearance of the boarded load more often than not. We depart at max taxi weight based on statistics, about which you know what they say…

I'd be more worried about how much luggage goes in overheads and under seats these days on top of the standard passenger weight. Some of the city pair full flights where they are putting cabin bags in the hold the lockers are filled to the brim and with many underseat bags. I know some companies account for the weight of excessive cabin baggage, but not sure if that's widespread. So much for 5-10 kg per passenger....

Problem with transport category the margin is huge in normal ops. Its when one donk goes pop that you test how those figures work. I only know of one recent shut down that occurred a few knots after V1 (bird ingestion), mid weights and the TP climbed fine and returned to land. All the other shut downs I know of have been conducted at higher altitude with lots of speed margin.

It would be interesting to know what the performance of a 737 loaded with maximum passengers (many over the standard weight) and fuel, then stacked with carry on luggage, dirt from service, peeling paint and scuffs and dents from service would climb like after a failure at V1. Not something I want to really find out on the spot.

That being said I've played in a few sims with ice weight and can easily get many extra tons in addition to max weight before it gets unhappy, but that's with two engines.

Another issue entirely is how accurate are the basic weights to begin with, but that's a whole topic in itself.

Spot on. Just goes to show that the current (new) Minister’s comment that “there is no margin for error in aviation safety” is - fortunately - naively misguided. But that suits the ‘safety’ regulator quite nicely - thank you very much - as it can be trotted out when convenient.

The actual situation reflects the general state of precision in the every day world. Some flights depart lighter/some depart heavier than computed. Almost none depart at the exact figure. Does 1% or 2% matter? Likely not. Maybe 1 or 2% on climb ratios.

About 25 years ago I flew a MEL-SYD sector in a 737-400. The aircraft flew sluggishly. I voiced my displeasure to the F/O who then made a Federal case out of it with ops. The load was weighed on arrival and found to be 4400+ kgs over. Reports filed. War dances danced. Threats issued, loaders tasered. Nothing else was ever heard. Tell me again about strict liability.

4400kg on a -400 is about 5% of MTOW, whether there is issues depends on a variety of things. If it was flying sluggish on 2 engines, think what it would be like on one accelerating from a few knots above V1. Then you have issues like Zero Fuel weight and the impact of overloads over a number of flights over time affecting fatigue life, gear limits, brakes and hydraulics, who knows, maybe pickle forks. If one flight departs accidentally over weight every now and then there is not much chance of the holes lining up, however the more often it happens the more likely we get answers to the questions posed in worst case scenarios.

Its a bit like saying there's nothing wrong with a truck being overloaded, until you have to brake suddenly to avoid an accident, or start down an steep descent and find the brakes fade out. Or engine and drive train wear out at half life because they have been working overtime.

On the topic of W&B, I’ve often wondered why manufacturers don’t install weight sensors in all the undercarriage bogeys.
You’d get an accurate Ramp weight and CG to compare with load sheet. Hmm… I may have inadvertently just answered my own question.

You make my point for me. The regulatory regime is a myriad of strict liability offences, all justified on the basis of a safety imperative. Compliance with the W&B envelope is one of them. Usually exceedances of W&B envelopes will precipitate strident claims of ‘test pilot territory’ and other dire consequences. I’m sure there’ll be something about W&B in PPL, CPL and ATPL training and testing.

But in the real world, day in day out, strict liability offences are committed with no consequences. As I’ve said, in this case I predict that Q, ATSB and CASA will come to the conclusion that there was no risk to safety.

So think about that: A strict liability offence provision, justified by the regulator on the ground of safety, is contravened but contravention is found by the regulator not to have caused any safety risk. It makes perfect (non)sense.

And think about how many strict liability cases we have covered in the last few weeks, from low fuel events, to security issues, to now overweight departure. And what charges have been laid, or fines issued? I doubt we will even see the reports as they will be handled 'in house' and distributed only to those that need to see. These scenarios need to be 100% transparent as the traveling public is being told the line that all this cost and severe penalties are required, but apparently doesn't apply if you are big enough to manage it yourself. And as said before it seems the rules only apply if you are an individual or small operator with no political clout. I've been through ATSB investigation and can say that the companies involved will strongly oppose any finding that will lead to changes, especially related to fatigue and working conditions, and the findings watered down so that nothing but some safety management system changes are rolled out, ie the constant finding that pilots are responsible to manage their own fatigue in a commercial environment.

The ATSB became a slapper of wet lettuce leaves the day they pushed Alan Stray out the door and Martin ‘Beaker’ Dolan and then Greg Hood took over. Dolan and Hood became puppets to their Ministerial puppet masters. Watered down accident reports containing politically massaged wording and at times investigative outcomes written as if a child had authored it has been the end result. The ATSB is an embarrassment. And they most certainly will never paint a damning picture of Qantas if the need arose, that’s a 100% given.

Don’t forget the other purveyors of crapp in aviation, the good folk from the Bureau of Climate Change aka BoM.

ATSB/CASA seem to give them free reign with producing forecasts that are produced by somebody using a woogie board or tea cup leaf reading.

Nothing you can do about weather forecasting unless somebody is proven to maliciously produce a false forecast to mislead. It's an imprecise science in its nature in that we only can predict a chaotic system so far based on limited precis information. Things like fog and thunderstorms are highly local knowledge based, even then the locals get it wrong sometimes. The BOM is protected from legal repercussion as you'd have airlines, shipping, graziers and a myriad of other businesses claiming billions in restitution when a bad forecast goes out. Then you'd just end up with no one wanting to do it.

The new Policy developed by Qantas Executive Management should immediately resolve all the current problems and complaints: https://www.theshovel.com.au/2022/06...BKByqmm5ZHzKpg

The BoM seem happy enough to put all the global warming crap on their website. Apparently they are ‘authoritative’ enuf to be able to forecast the WX associations 100 years in advance..:hmm: