Does Anyone Still Teach the Fundamentals of Weight and Balance anymore?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North East
Age: 37
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accuracy is vital speed is secondary.
Interesting points though, I suppose if you're dealing with large volumes of cargo than a greater knowledge of a/c loading procedures is needed, but for the vast majority of load controllers/dispatchers out there deal with pax flights and the same a/c types day in day out.
Safety is no Accident wasn't just a 'sound bite' and 99% really wasn't good enough.
Of course when I put signature on a loadsheet/load release etc, to the best of my knowledge its 100% correct because ultimately I know I'm responsible.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Xxxx
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it rather strange that the writer believes that flight deck crew have a greater knowledge of weight and balance than groundstaff. In nearly 40 years of working for a major airline I can tell you they do not. They do investigate load control as part of their command training so that, in theory, they can prepare a loadsheet if no specialist is available. Competent load control staff were well trained in the "old" days and expected to have a depth of knowledge.
Funnily enough many moons ago I recall one airline that saved some cash on turnaround charges (£3.00 as I recall!) by saying flight crew would do the load plan/sheet/balance..... oh and fuel was always problematic (as in getting all the load on while trying to get more than flight plan mins).
Only an 'ickle a/c but req/d seat loading of mail in first two rows, pax in the rest and squeezing every last ounce (OK, OK ... Kilo) of bags/frt/mail into every nook and cranny.
First crew to arrive after the change called up wind components on the way in and went very quite when advised they were the first flight to benefit from their companies new cost saving measure.....
Skipper popped in on arrival and asked would we do it for a fiver "cash in hand"
...... he turned out to be the first of a long line 
Only an 'ickle a/c but req/d seat loading of mail in first two rows, pax in the rest and squeezing every last ounce (OK, OK ... Kilo) of bags/frt/mail into every nook and cranny.
First crew to arrive after the change called up wind components on the way in and went very quite when advised they were the first flight to benefit from their companies new cost saving measure.....
Skipper popped in on arrival and asked would we do it for a fiver "cash in hand"
...... he turned out to be the first of a long line
Last edited by 42psi; 3rd Aug 2008 at 10:44.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wt & Bal Training
Sadly, it would appear that such training is a thing of the past.
In many cases, it is just a matter of filling in the "magic boxes" on a manual load & trim sheet or pressing the "magic keys" ... until something goes wrong!.
Then.... "we did not do that in training....!!!!!
Quality basic training willalways be important
In many cases, it is just a matter of filling in the "magic boxes" on a manual load & trim sheet or pressing the "magic keys" ... until something goes wrong!.
Then.... "we did not do that in training....!!!!!
Quality basic training willalways be important
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Fratton End
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet2.com F/deck crews get initial/refresher and command mass and balance training taught by the 2 line training loadmasters from the cargo side.
Unfortunately most of the experienced guys retired to the
Channel Express retirement home for old loadmasters called Wickesair !
Did I hear someone say whizz wheel....I'm getting moist now, where's my chinagraph and casio calculator
Unfortunately most of the experienced guys retired to the
Channel Express retirement home for old loadmasters called Wickesair !
Did I hear someone say whizz wheel....I'm getting moist now, where's my chinagraph and casio calculator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 42
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W & B
Do I pick up a bit of nostalgia in the older folk, I hope you aren’t feeling threatened by the new age creeping up,
Yes the basics are important but new age dispatch systems make stuff that much quicker and easier.
So the old folks can keep up and smoke a little longer on that pipe on coffee break.
Ever crossed your mind to teach us younger folks the tricks of the trade?
Nope takes up to much of your important time I suppose.
Yes the basics are important but new age dispatch systems make stuff that much quicker and easier.
So the old folks can keep up and smoke a little longer on that pipe on coffee break.
Ever crossed your mind to teach us younger folks the tricks of the trade?
Nope takes up to much of your important time I suppose.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it gets much worse!
Now many companies use "Global Load Control" or Centralised Loadsheet Factories. On actual flights, the ramp agents are given a loading instruction to follow and they send any deviations and amount of bags in any given compartment back to the load controller. What is quite frustrating is when the loadplanning (often completed abroad) contains errors.
Those encountered were:incorrect load priorities or so trim critical at the planning stage that no consideration is taken of passenger seating, or even any comprehension about compartment sizes. (Trying to fit 20 bags into a non-existant net section!)
Now many companies use "Global Load Control" or Centralised Loadsheet Factories. On actual flights, the ramp agents are given a loading instruction to follow and they send any deviations and amount of bags in any given compartment back to the load controller. What is quite frustrating is when the loadplanning (often completed abroad) contains errors.
Those encountered were:incorrect load priorities or so trim critical at the planning stage that no consideration is taken of passenger seating, or even any comprehension about compartment sizes. (Trying to fit 20 bags into a non-existant net section!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centralised Load Control and Load Planning was an inevitable outcome of computerised DCS and Cargo Systems. From the technology side the 'missing link' was the 'tools' to transmit timely changes from Aircraft Side to the Load Control Centre and the revision in turN being actioned. There are now a range of technologies that can be used in combination so that this link can be integrated in ways to suit a specifIc Airports infrastructure and if implemented sensibly works extremely well.
However at least one implementation has been carried out in a 'Heath Robinson' manner and when it was first described to me I thought I was being 'wound up'. 'One cobbled together' implementation does not invalidate the fact that the technology is viable.
In some countries there may still be regulatory issues, but these will change over time.
Having got the above out off the way, I will finally move back towards the theme of this thread and to Boeingbus2002's post:
Assuming a Centralised Load Control then:
With functions becoming increasing remote form the AIrport, the role of the Dispatcher should be becoming even more important and although 'jack of all trades' a dispatcher must be master of most of them and at least a journeryman in the rest, yet the pressure to reduce the Dispatchers Status and role, which has always been there, has (from conversations I have had over the last two years) actually begun to happen. This is happening at a time when the role and therefore the Status (and consequently Training) of Dispatchers should be enhanced.
However at least one implementation has been carried out in a 'Heath Robinson' manner and when it was first described to me I thought I was being 'wound up'. 'One cobbled together' implementation does not invalidate the fact that the technology is viable.
In some countries there may still be regulatory issues, but these will change over time.
Having got the above out off the way, I will finally move back towards the theme of this thread and to Boeingbus2002's post:
On actual flights, the ramp agents are given a loading instruction to follow and they send any deviations and amount of bags in any given compartment back to the load controller. What is quite frustrating is when the loadplanning (often completed abroad) contains errors.
Those encountered were:incorrect load priorities or so trim critical at the planning stage that no consideration is taken of passenger seating, or even any comprehension about compartment sizes. (Trying to fit 20 bags into a non-existant net section!)
Those encountered were:incorrect load priorities or so trim critical at the planning stage that no consideration is taken of passenger seating, or even any comprehension about compartment sizes. (Trying to fit 20 bags into a non-existant net section!)
- The staff entering the Semi-permanent data on each Carriers Aircraft, MUST have sufficient knowledge to spot errors and each entry must be independently verified before becoming live data
- Load Planners working in the Centre MUST be trained to a high standard and checked out on each carriers Aircraft Type.
- When dealing with Cargo, whether on Mixed Passenger, or Cargo only flights, Load Planners MUST understand and conform to the regulations on Dangerous, Special Handling and Live Cargo and ensure their trim plan takes these into account and just as importantly ensure their Loading Instructions clearly State these requirements.
- When dealing with Bulk Cargo loaded into Holds, Load Planners take note of possible volume problems and if this is likely to be an issue note offload priorities.
- Load Planners should be aware of Route and Seasonal variations particularly as regards Baggage (e.g. West Africa Routes, or the Skiing Season). Some of which can be incorporated into the Load Planning Module as 'rules', but also should be part of an online Knowledge Base for the Planners.
- Once they have released their Load Plan, they are effectively passing control to the Ramp Dispatcher.
- Trim changes during the departure phase can be due to any number of reasons, ranging from the 'unexpected Dog/Cat etc' through an item of Bulk Cargo which cannot be tilted, but will only go through the door, if laid on its side, etc. On a given Flight, even Passenger Baggage may unexpectedly be out of normal range and require a retrim.
- Assuming the 'link' between Dispatcher and the Load Control Centre has been implemented properly, then change control of the trim should not be an issue.
- The final Last Minute Changes are on most scheduled Flights are Passenger Related and again providing a good link available then these should NOT cause a delay, especially if the final loadsheet is passed by ACARS/AIRCOM after doors closed.
With functions becoming increasing remote form the AIrport, the role of the Dispatcher should be becoming even more important and although 'jack of all trades' a dispatcher must be master of most of them and at least a journeryman in the rest, yet the pressure to reduce the Dispatchers Status and role, which has always been there, has (from conversations I have had over the last two years) actually begun to happen. This is happening at a time when the role and therefore the Status (and consequently Training) of Dispatchers should be enhanced.
Last edited by Opssys; 12th Aug 2008 at 18:33.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another problem that arises is when "load controllers" use the "auto load plan" function, thus not actually knowing what is going on. The errors spotted by ramp agents have been attributed to this.
The ramp agents receive a reduced training package which is a cost saving measure. They still enter the specific details required for loadsheets to be produced and still hit a release button. The load controller simply hits another button to send a loadsheet via ACARS or to make it available for re-printing.
(Of course this may work well when completed all in house from one location), however for most long haul carriers, the flight is being operated out of LHR and the loadcontroller is sitting in an office in Bangkok. Cape Town, Istanbul without perhaps even knowing what the holds look like in real life!
Didn't VS have a few incidents due to centralised load planning a while back?
I recall some AAIB reports with various recommenations.
The ramp agents receive a reduced training package which is a cost saving measure. They still enter the specific details required for loadsheets to be produced and still hit a release button. The load controller simply hits another button to send a loadsheet via ACARS or to make it available for re-printing.
(Of course this may work well when completed all in house from one location), however for most long haul carriers, the flight is being operated out of LHR and the loadcontroller is sitting in an office in Bangkok. Cape Town, Istanbul without perhaps even knowing what the holds look like in real life!
Didn't VS have a few incidents due to centralised load planning a while back?
I recall some AAIB reports with various recommenations.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
boeingbus2002.
This type of 'user dependence' is something the Supervisory and Management Staff of the Load Control Centre must avoid, as it happens even if staff are technically competent, they 'let the computer take the strain' and don't even visually check the product output. Of course if their training has been skimped, then their 'user dependence level is 100%, and what was a risk that can be dealt with, becomes a potential danger!
A well designed and administered system improves productivity and overall accuracy within the parameters of its design and the information it holds, but the Human Brain is still much more flexible than any computer system and can deal with what to the computer are anomalies, and take into account information not stored, or not available to the system.
Whether a reduced Training Package is adequate, depends on what it is reduced from (some posts tend to indicate even where centralised Load Control is not used Load Control Training is already at minimum). Well I am sure I will be contradicted, but my view is that:
A Dispatcher should have a short Load Control Course, a full course on practical loading and dangerous goods. The Carrier brief for Dispatchers should include the same drawings by Aircraft type as for Load Planners and any special loading requirements (Standard EIC, or Spare Packs).
The means of,and distribution of, Documents (Loading Instructions/Plan, Loadsheet, Special Load Notifications, etc) are really down to what is available at the Airport of Departure (The WAN/LAN and Device Configurations would have to be worked out with IT Support) and/or Aircraft and can be any combination of Printer/Display in Offices, Gates, Dispatcher Vehicle, or ACARS/AIRCOM to Cockpit, or Cabin Management System. Obviously the Dispatcher must know what a particular Carrier requires and if ACAR/AIRCOM Equipped is this where the Load Sheet will be delivered and whether draft and final are required.
There are different variations of Centralised Load Control:
Handling Agent- Covering one Country, or region, I don't think any are Global, Airline- normally Global, or Airline Outsourced.
If have tried not to get into these variations on a theme, because providing the staff in the Load Control Centre responsible for Semi-permanent Data Maintenance, Load Planning, Loadsheet production are fully trained, competent and checked out on each Carriers Aircraft Type the location should NOT Matter, but this also means that the one remaining eyes and ears at the Airport of Departure, the Dispatcher is adequately trained and Competent and has a good Carrier Briefing Document (either on-line, or hard copy and which is maintained with updates).
As for the Load Planners not knowing the Holds/Compartments of an Aircraft Type Belonging to a particular Carrier:
As an Airlines Systems Person , I should say it doesn't matter as a good system properly maintained will store the Hold/Compartment and Cabin Specifications by Carrier, by type, sub-type and variant.
But it does matter, as a pragmatist, the system holds these specifications as numeric data and whilst I accept it is NOT Practical for Load Planners to spend time with very Carriers Aircraft Type, I firmly believe that their on-line knowledge base should have annotated three view and perspective drawings of the Hold/Compartments for each Carrier and Type (Plus Cabin Configurations).
It is obvious from your Post that there is a major shortfall in training, competency, standards and quality assurance in the Load Control Centre you deal with. You have my sympathy and all you can do is report incidents, irregularities and if you find even a possible hint that safety was compromised then ensure you get the report as far up your organisations management totem pole as possible.
Another problem that arises is when Load controllers use the auto load plan function, thus not actually knowing what is going on. The errors spotted by ramp agents have been attributed to this.
A well designed and administered system improves productivity and overall accuracy within the parameters of its design and the information it holds, but the Human Brain is still much more flexible than any computer system and can deal with what to the computer are anomalies, and take into account information not stored, or not available to the system.
The ramp agents receive a reduced training package which is a cost saving measure. They still enter the specific details required for loadsheets to be produced and still hit a release button. The load controller simply hits another button to send a loadsheet via ACARS or to make it available for re-printing.
A Dispatcher should have a short Load Control Course, a full course on practical loading and dangerous goods. The Carrier brief for Dispatchers should include the same drawings by Aircraft type as for Load Planners and any special loading requirements (Standard EIC, or Spare Packs).
The means of,and distribution of, Documents (Loading Instructions/Plan, Loadsheet, Special Load Notifications, etc) are really down to what is available at the Airport of Departure (The WAN/LAN and Device Configurations would have to be worked out with IT Support) and/or Aircraft and can be any combination of Printer/Display in Offices, Gates, Dispatcher Vehicle, or ACARS/AIRCOM to Cockpit, or Cabin Management System. Obviously the Dispatcher must know what a particular Carrier requires and if ACAR/AIRCOM Equipped is this where the Load Sheet will be delivered and whether draft and final are required.
(Of course this may work well when completed all in house from one location), however for most long haul carriers, the flight is being operated out of LHR and the loadcontroller is sitting in an office in Bangkok. Cape Town, Istanbul without perhaps even knowing what the holds look like in real life!
Handling Agent- Covering one Country, or region, I don't think any are Global, Airline- normally Global, or Airline Outsourced.
If have tried not to get into these variations on a theme, because providing the staff in the Load Control Centre responsible for Semi-permanent Data Maintenance, Load Planning, Loadsheet production are fully trained, competent and checked out on each Carriers Aircraft Type the location should NOT Matter, but this also means that the one remaining eyes and ears at the Airport of Departure, the Dispatcher is adequately trained and Competent and has a good Carrier Briefing Document (either on-line, or hard copy and which is maintained with updates).
As for the Load Planners not knowing the Holds/Compartments of an Aircraft Type Belonging to a particular Carrier:
As an Airlines Systems Person , I should say it doesn't matter as a good system properly maintained will store the Hold/Compartment and Cabin Specifications by Carrier, by type, sub-type and variant.
But it does matter, as a pragmatist, the system holds these specifications as numeric data and whilst I accept it is NOT Practical for Load Planners to spend time with very Carriers Aircraft Type, I firmly believe that their on-line knowledge base should have annotated three view and perspective drawings of the Hold/Compartments for each Carrier and Type (Plus Cabin Configurations).
It is obvious from your Post that there is a major shortfall in training, competency, standards and quality assurance in the Load Control Centre you deal with. You have my sympathy and all you can do is report incidents, irregularities and if you find even a possible hint that safety was compromised then ensure you get the report as far up your organisations management totem pole as possible.
Last edited by Opssys; 13th Aug 2008 at 02:17.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"With functions becoming increasing remote form the AIrport, the role of the Dispatcher should be becoming even more important and although 'jack of all trades' a dispatcher must be master of most of them and at least a journeryman in the rest, yet the pressure to reduce the Dispatchers Status and role, which has always been there, has (from conversations I have had over the last two years) actually begun to happen. This is happening at a time when the role and therefore the Status (and consequently Training) of Dispatchers should be enhanced."
There is the alternative view in that the role of the Dispatcher, within certain operating parameters, can be made redundant.
This systerm has worked successfully at large bases for several carriers and is a function of the CLC planning and communicating the load and any restrictions; crews self brief and the aircraft have ACARS/AIRCOM; the Ramp team leader takes responsibility for loading and communicating deviations and signing off the loading; and the passenger boarding team taking responsibility for the passenger load and any deviations and signing off the laod. All other servicing agents (catering, fuel, cleaners etc.) are contracted directly by the carrier on time related contracts.
When everyone is trained correctly and companies take responsibility for the delivery of their service the Dispatcher role becomes redundant.
I do not advocate this as the ideal, and it does not work in all environments, but the 'old' role of the Dispatcher has changed massively over the years and will, as the products technology develop, change further. One of the drivers of this is the change in aviation, the LCC's, and their operating models (no cargo, catering only at 'x' stations, limited cleaning, needs related TSU/WSU etc.) have changed the dynamics of the requirements of an aircraft turnround and some of the older skills are just not needed.
Aviation is now a very complex and varied industry. Competence of the individuals, in whatever role they are fulfilling, achieved by adequate training and experience is the safest solution.
GH
"With functions becoming increasing remote form the AIrport, the role of the Dispatcher should be becoming even more important and although 'jack of all trades' a dispatcher must be master of most of them and at least a journeryman in the rest, yet the pressure to reduce the Dispatchers Status and role, which has always been there, has (from conversations I have had over the last two years) actually begun to happen. This is happening at a time when the role and therefore the Status (and consequently Training) of Dispatchers should be enhanced."
There is the alternative view in that the role of the Dispatcher, within certain operating parameters, can be made redundant.
This systerm has worked successfully at large bases for several carriers and is a function of the CLC planning and communicating the load and any restrictions; crews self brief and the aircraft have ACARS/AIRCOM; the Ramp team leader takes responsibility for loading and communicating deviations and signing off the loading; and the passenger boarding team taking responsibility for the passenger load and any deviations and signing off the laod. All other servicing agents (catering, fuel, cleaners etc.) are contracted directly by the carrier on time related contracts.
When everyone is trained correctly and companies take responsibility for the delivery of their service the Dispatcher role becomes redundant.
I do not advocate this as the ideal, and it does not work in all environments, but the 'old' role of the Dispatcher has changed massively over the years and will, as the products technology develop, change further. One of the drivers of this is the change in aviation, the LCC's, and their operating models (no cargo, catering only at 'x' stations, limited cleaning, needs related TSU/WSU etc.) have changed the dynamics of the requirements of an aircraft turnround and some of the older skills are just not needed.
Aviation is now a very complex and varied industry. Competence of the individuals, in whatever role they are fulfilling, achieved by adequate training and experience is the safest solution.
GH
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Groundhand
The concept of each Service/Function being responsible and accountable for notifying its start/completion/delay of its part of the turnaround critical path has been around a very long time. Communications and.Systems tools to put this into practise have also been around for some years. In fact the concept in a simplified form have been in operation with at least one large non-UK commuter airline for a decade and although applied to 50/70 Seaters, providing the Onboard Servicee is minimal and Holds are Baggage only doing the same thing on a larger aircraft should not be a problem, providing System/Communications Tools are implemented, and those providing services are competent..
For Operations where Service Standards are higher and Cargo is an element the Turnaround Critical Path is much more complex. However
the Ramp Team Leader replaces role I assigned to the Dispatcher in my previous post as regards Holds and Pax Services would enter deviatons as they occur affecting the cabin. So for the purposes of this thread there isn't a problem.
Whilst I have strong views on the role of the Dispatcher in Mainline Operations, I do accept these may be 'out of step' with current thinking and in certain operational environments can be reduced, or even disappear as a separate function. .
However I think the Role of the Dispatcher Now and in the Future is worthy of a thread of its own - Care to start it
?
.
There is the alternative view in that the role of the Dispatcher, within certain operating parameters, can be made redundant.
This systerm has worked successfully at large bases for several carriers and is a function of the CLC planning and communicating the load and any restrictions; crews self brief and the aircraft have ACARS/AIRCOM; the Ramp team leader takes responsibility for loading and communicating deviations and signing off the loading; and the passenger boarding team taking responsibility for the passenger load and any deviations and signing off the laod. All other servicing agents (catering, fuel, cleaners etc.) are contracted directly by the carrier on time related contracts.
When everyone is trained correctly and companies take responsibility for the delivery of their service the Dispatcher role becomes redundant.
This systerm has worked successfully at large bases for several carriers and is a function of the CLC planning and communicating the load and any restrictions; crews self brief and the aircraft have ACARS/AIRCOM; the Ramp team leader takes responsibility for loading and communicating deviations and signing off the loading; and the passenger boarding team taking responsibility for the passenger load and any deviations and signing off the laod. All other servicing agents (catering, fuel, cleaners etc.) are contracted directly by the carrier on time related contracts.
When everyone is trained correctly and companies take responsibility for the delivery of their service the Dispatcher role becomes redundant.
For Operations where Service Standards are higher and Cargo is an element the Turnaround Critical Path is much more complex. However
the Ramp Team Leader replaces role I assigned to the Dispatcher in my previous post as regards Holds and Pax Services would enter deviatons as they occur affecting the cabin. So for the purposes of this thread there isn't a problem.
Whilst I have strong views on the role of the Dispatcher in Mainline Operations, I do accept these may be 'out of step' with current thinking and in certain operational environments can be reduced, or even disappear as a separate function. .
However I think the Role of the Dispatcher Now and in the Future is worthy of a thread of its own - Care to start it
?.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish people wouldn't put their record times for loadsheets, because now the inevitable will have to happen!
During my line training i follishly admitted to not being very good at, or like doing the manaul load sheet. I then spent most of the Bay of Biscay doing them against the clock with the chief pilot shaking his head and tutting.
During my line training i follishly admitted to not being very good at, or like doing the manaul load sheet. I then spent most of the Bay of Biscay doing them against the clock with the chief pilot shaking his head and tutting.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opssys,
We are along the same lines but the 'no Dispatcher' model I was referring to is a legacy international (shorthaul and longhaul) operator that carries huge amounts (and a large mix of DGR) of cargo on most it's LH services. And it all works well without a designated 'Dispatcher' or, God forbid, Turnround Co-ordinator.
One of the main issues in today's industry is that there are too many Dispatch/Traffic/Ops 'managers' who do not, themselves, fully understand the fundamentals of mass and balance and have no appreciation of the more complex areas of the expertise required for certain types of aircraft. Just think of a young(ish) Traffic person who joined 6/7/8 years ago at a regional airport - most of the market is lc, the larger carriers are clc with a few 'self m&b' customers as well. The said person makes manager and then does a good job at his/her airport and then gets promoted to a large hub airport where there is a need for specialist m&b. He/she has no grounding for the expertise nor experience required to meet this requirement. The potential for a falling of standards is almost inevitable.
And it gets worse as these individuals climb their corporate ladders.
Enough moaning, back to some graft....
GH
We are along the same lines but the 'no Dispatcher' model I was referring to is a legacy international (shorthaul and longhaul) operator that carries huge amounts (and a large mix of DGR) of cargo on most it's LH services. And it all works well without a designated 'Dispatcher' or, God forbid, Turnround Co-ordinator.
One of the main issues in today's industry is that there are too many Dispatch/Traffic/Ops 'managers' who do not, themselves, fully understand the fundamentals of mass and balance and have no appreciation of the more complex areas of the expertise required for certain types of aircraft. Just think of a young(ish) Traffic person who joined 6/7/8 years ago at a regional airport - most of the market is lc, the larger carriers are clc with a few 'self m&b' customers as well. The said person makes manager and then does a good job at his/her airport and then gets promoted to a large hub airport where there is a need for specialist m&b. He/she has no grounding for the expertise nor experience required to meet this requirement. The potential for a falling of standards is almost inevitable.
And it gets worse as these individuals climb their corporate ladders.
Enough moaning, back to some graft....
GH
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
weight and balance/loading errors .UK/CAA progress
Whilst external publicity campaign may be slow to start off with, the UK/CAA have formed a GHOST sub-committee (Ground Handling Operational Safety Team) whose membership comes from a range of airlines and ground handlers in order to look more deeply into the causes of loading errors and weight and balance errors for operators ex UK territory and how to eradicate the trend!!
.
This is ongoing and progressing with the help of volunteer membership from the fields of airlines and ground handlers.
.
The aim is to minimise,reduce the risk, by knowledge and training and hopefully eliminate loadsheet and misloading errors by the request for co-operation by airline "providers" for full training, qualification and refreshers by all those companies and individual employees involved in traffic and ramp duties.
No current ground UK licencing legislation exists other than the Air Navigation Orders reminder that one shouldn't "knowingly or willingly make a incorrect entry onto a loadsheet whatsover".
.
It is currently a matter for the AIRLINE to select and AUDIT the GROUND HANDLER and to provide the Ground Ops/Loading/Traffic manual material with the standards and procedures for "traffic duties" of the airlines own head offices.
The issues as discussed in these forums on PPRUNE include:
1/The use of "RUNNERS" at a/c side for co-ordination of paperwork/turns who may be basically trained but not weight and balance qualified en masse.
.
2/The use of Global CLC/CLP methods including LMCs for report back before airborne to the flight deck either by ACARS or loadsheet LMC box.
.
3/Induction training standards by ground handlers/airlines to ALL groundcrews whether they be check-in agents, loading team,traffic agencies and aircrew.
.
4/Refresher training standards and local "licencing/validation certification"
.
5/The LIRF estimated load v final load for weight and trim, accurately annointed and loadsheet/balance chart compared and adjusted to 100% final.
.
6/Passenger bay seating v row seating for trim and cabincrew control over it
.
7/Standard baggage weights v actual baggage weights v heavy baggage.
.
8/Overcoming the "fear" factor of agency employees wishing to report rogue airlines or ground handling supervisors for alleged loadsheet "adjustments" when overweight situation occurs (usually baggage weights too high at close-out)
.
9/The reluctance of Ground Handlers to report customer airlines for loading or weight and balance irregularities by use of a GSR (Ground Safety Report)
.
10/The actual knowledge to every employee of airlines/ground handler that they may report either genuine errors or deliberate "fudging of weights" scenarios to the authorities in confidence.
.
Hopefully, over the next few months, more public awareness information will be made available, so that ANY employee for ANY walk of life at the airport will be made more aware of the importance of weight and balance and correct aircraft loading, regardless of which ground services department or aircrew division you all work for.
.
Finally, the loadsheet has a better chance of being 100% accurate if the checklist is put in place before presentation to the captain that the physical confirmation by tick/yellow pen/circle/initial or any other visible means can demonstrate to the captain and give confidence to him/her that the following have been double-checked BEFORE PRESENTATION to the commaander;
REGISTRATION
DATE
DESTINATION(s)
FLIGHT NUMBER
CREW COMPLEMENT
PANTRY CODE
DOW/DOI or APS WT/INDEX
TAKE OFF FUEL/TAXI/BURN
PAX ON BOARD
DEADLOAD IN HOLDS
LOADING INSTRUCTION V LOADSHEET DISTRIBUTION
BAGGAGE WEIGHTS ACTUALS/ NOTIONAL SCHEDULE/CHARTER
PAX WEIGHTS CHARTER OR SCHEDULE OR SEASONAL ROUTING APPROVED
DEADLOAD IN HOLDS IS GOING TO SAME PLACE AS LOADSHEET SUGGESTS!!
.
I hope this gives confidence to all PPRUNE readers and contributors that there really are panels/committees that exist for the good of accurate load control and safe flying every sector as an result of these awareness campaigns.
.
.
This is ongoing and progressing with the help of volunteer membership from the fields of airlines and ground handlers.
.
The aim is to minimise,reduce the risk, by knowledge and training and hopefully eliminate loadsheet and misloading errors by the request for co-operation by airline "providers" for full training, qualification and refreshers by all those companies and individual employees involved in traffic and ramp duties.
No current ground UK licencing legislation exists other than the Air Navigation Orders reminder that one shouldn't "knowingly or willingly make a incorrect entry onto a loadsheet whatsover".
.
It is currently a matter for the AIRLINE to select and AUDIT the GROUND HANDLER and to provide the Ground Ops/Loading/Traffic manual material with the standards and procedures for "traffic duties" of the airlines own head offices.
The issues as discussed in these forums on PPRUNE include:
1/The use of "RUNNERS" at a/c side for co-ordination of paperwork/turns who may be basically trained but not weight and balance qualified en masse.
.
2/The use of Global CLC/CLP methods including LMCs for report back before airborne to the flight deck either by ACARS or loadsheet LMC box.
.
3/Induction training standards by ground handlers/airlines to ALL groundcrews whether they be check-in agents, loading team,traffic agencies and aircrew.
.
4/Refresher training standards and local "licencing/validation certification"
.
5/The LIRF estimated load v final load for weight and trim, accurately annointed and loadsheet/balance chart compared and adjusted to 100% final.
.
6/Passenger bay seating v row seating for trim and cabincrew control over it
.
7/Standard baggage weights v actual baggage weights v heavy baggage.
.
8/Overcoming the "fear" factor of agency employees wishing to report rogue airlines or ground handling supervisors for alleged loadsheet "adjustments" when overweight situation occurs (usually baggage weights too high at close-out)
.
9/The reluctance of Ground Handlers to report customer airlines for loading or weight and balance irregularities by use of a GSR (Ground Safety Report)
.
10/The actual knowledge to every employee of airlines/ground handler that they may report either genuine errors or deliberate "fudging of weights" scenarios to the authorities in confidence.
.
Hopefully, over the next few months, more public awareness information will be made available, so that ANY employee for ANY walk of life at the airport will be made more aware of the importance of weight and balance and correct aircraft loading, regardless of which ground services department or aircrew division you all work for.
.
Finally, the loadsheet has a better chance of being 100% accurate if the checklist is put in place before presentation to the captain that the physical confirmation by tick/yellow pen/circle/initial or any other visible means can demonstrate to the captain and give confidence to him/her that the following have been double-checked BEFORE PRESENTATION to the commaander;
REGISTRATION
DATE
DESTINATION(s)
FLIGHT NUMBER
CREW COMPLEMENT
PANTRY CODE
DOW/DOI or APS WT/INDEX
TAKE OFF FUEL/TAXI/BURN
PAX ON BOARD
DEADLOAD IN HOLDS
LOADING INSTRUCTION V LOADSHEET DISTRIBUTION
BAGGAGE WEIGHTS ACTUALS/ NOTIONAL SCHEDULE/CHARTER
PAX WEIGHTS CHARTER OR SCHEDULE OR SEASONAL ROUTING APPROVED
DEADLOAD IN HOLDS IS GOING TO SAME PLACE AS LOADSHEET SUGGESTS!!
.
I hope this gives confidence to all PPRUNE readers and contributors that there really are panels/committees that exist for the good of accurate load control and safe flying every sector as an result of these awareness campaigns.
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trident3
Well I am impressed that the CAA has done this.
Is there any web link to the work/status etc of this committee as I for one would like to follow progress.
Well I am impressed that the CAA has done this.
Is there any web link to the work/status etc of this committee as I for one would like to follow progress.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
website access
The UK/CAA website is being reviewed to seek the opportunity for agents to report any "unsafe activities or concerns of loading-weight and balance" and hopefully there will be some news of the website access after 17SEP08 next meeting.
I will happily update this post as soon as it is confirmed, as the safety of aviation community relies on the positive actions and culture of all those involved, many agents currently not realising genuinely how much they can make a difference by being included and educated to a higher standard about load control/aircraft despatch/loading supervsion etc
.
Fear of employment termination for the individual agent and concern of the potential loss of an airline customer to a competitive ground handler, if the airline was reported for alleged unsafe practices or lack of training, may be the drive behind why so few reports (GSR-ASR) are ever filed, plus the agent may not have been educated by the employer into how to report an alleged incident or alleged trend. These are assumptions worth considering in all airlines and ground handlers back-yards !!.
.
I will happily update this post as soon as it is confirmed, as the safety of aviation community relies on the positive actions and culture of all those involved, many agents currently not realising genuinely how much they can make a difference by being included and educated to a higher standard about load control/aircraft despatch/loading supervsion etc
.
Fear of employment termination for the individual agent and concern of the potential loss of an airline customer to a competitive ground handler, if the airline was reported for alleged unsafe practices or lack of training, may be the drive behind why so few reports (GSR-ASR) are ever filed, plus the agent may not have been educated by the employer into how to report an alleged incident or alleged trend. These are assumptions worth considering in all airlines and ground handlers back-yards !!.
.
