Does Anyone Still Teach the Fundamentals of Weight and Balance anymore?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does Anyone Still Teach the Fundamentals of Weight and Balance anymore?
In another place, I have been looking at the building of a generic Weight and Balance System and found my very long ago training useful.
This has made me wonder if any company today gives its staff anything like the training I received 30+ years ago.
For example starting with the Basic Empty Weight and Index of the Aircraft and literally adding the Passenger Seats by weight and index to create the required configuration and adding in the varius other elements by weight and index, then Crew, Catering,, Fuel, etc. Finally completing the Loadsheet by using supplied Passenger, Baggage and Cargo information using Hold Mean Indexes and Passengers by Row.
I suspect not, but I just had to ask!
This has made me wonder if any company today gives its staff anything like the training I received 30+ years ago.
For example starting with the Basic Empty Weight and Index of the Aircraft and literally adding the Passenger Seats by weight and index to create the required configuration and adding in the varius other elements by weight and index, then Crew, Catering,, Fuel, etc. Finally completing the Loadsheet by using supplied Passenger, Baggage and Cargo information using Hold Mean Indexes and Passengers by Row.
I suspect not, but I just had to ask!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: BHX
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats how i learned mate.
Baisic a/c weight + required ops items + crew + pax by row/bay split + fuel + load in compartments + cargo etc etc. Giving summary weights all the way along checking against maximums then making adjustments for fuel and other index changes et al.
I know that sounds like all weight and balance but i learned it step by step in the way you mentioned. Good way imho
Baisic a/c weight + required ops items + crew + pax by row/bay split + fuel + load in compartments + cargo etc etc. Giving summary weights all the way along checking against maximums then making adjustments for fuel and other index changes et al.
I know that sounds like all weight and balance but i learned it step by step in the way you mentioned. Good way imho
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if any company today gives its staff anything like the training I received 30+ years ago
Mutt
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 79
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just remember to keep the ruler straight, not too sharp a pencil (so as not to tear the top sheet), no chinagraphs, no smudging the carbon copy, make sure the TABSO, SAM, Spantax, World Wide Canada, Wardair etc., crew can read your scruffy presentation. "If you do this, then go fill yer boots my son" This was the 'go forward and do it' talk given to me back in 1963 after 2 days on W&B trng.
Never forget the basics & they won't forget about you!
Never forget the basics & they won't forget about you!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Xxxx
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was taught the good old fashioned way nearly 40 years ago. I know that when I retired 18 months ago even the best of load control training was a mere shadow of what had been.
But then I was probably seen as a fossil by the newcomers to the art.
But then I was probably seen as a fossil by the newcomers to the art.
Moderator
extremely intensive 2 week course
Starting with no/little background and having the end result being competence in weighing, weight control, and complex loading systems ... that's about what it takes ... about a week to cover up to routine stuff, weighings etc... and a week to cover all the ins and outs of loading systems.
Starting with no/little background and having the end result being competence in weighing, weight control, and complex loading systems ... that's about what it takes ... about a week to cover up to routine stuff, weighings etc... and a week to cover all the ins and outs of loading systems.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Berlin
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W&B Training
I used to teach 2-3week load control courses, really starting from scratch, aerodynamics and the usual why does an aircraft fly, that gets new guys really thinking! Having taught the subject for 15 years there have been good training courses given by airlines, BA and LH are pretty good, but these days you just tend to go with one week manual loadsheets then 2 weeks EDP, after all its the days of Central load control CLC, thats my game now, not like the old days with trim wheels and real challenges...............aaaaar pull up a sand bag time.........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the replies seem to be from people who received their basic training in 'my era'.
As someone who went into airline systems in 1979-80, one of my early concerns was actually the negative effects of de-skilling the various functions to the point there was little or no knowledge of the basics.
This resulting in those responsible for maintaining a computers semi-permanent data not understanding what they were entering and not having the knowledge to query what to my generation was obviously incorrect data. This did not apply to just Load Control/Load Planning, but across the Ground Disciplines.
For most of the next 20 years, Clients and Employers always had one, or two 'old timers' in each discipline who knew the fundamentals, but there seemed to be few following in their footsteps.
In a recent telephone conversation the caller quoted what I wrote in an internal paper (they hoard all documentation) on this in the early 1980s and said that they had just seen for real what I quoted as an example! (Tom If your reading this send me a copy :-)
Whilst many foreign Airlines do train the fundamentals of each discipline and then train on the computer, sytem I am increasingly concerned this is no longer the case in the UK Airline/Handling Agency environment and has'nt been for a looooooooong time.
As someone who went into airline systems in 1979-80, one of my early concerns was actually the negative effects of de-skilling the various functions to the point there was little or no knowledge of the basics.
This resulting in those responsible for maintaining a computers semi-permanent data not understanding what they were entering and not having the knowledge to query what to my generation was obviously incorrect data. This did not apply to just Load Control/Load Planning, but across the Ground Disciplines.
For most of the next 20 years, Clients and Employers always had one, or two 'old timers' in each discipline who knew the fundamentals, but there seemed to be few following in their footsteps.
In a recent telephone conversation the caller quoted what I wrote in an internal paper (they hoard all documentation) on this in the early 1980s and said that they had just seen for real what I quoted as an example! (Tom If your reading this send me a copy :-)
Whilst many foreign Airlines do train the fundamentals of each discipline and then train on the computer, sytem I am increasingly concerned this is no longer the case in the UK Airline/Handling Agency environment and has'nt been for a looooooooong time.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft Loading/Unloading Theory and Practical
In John Tullamarine's post, which I realise was from a Pilot's view point, I would take slight issue with:
When I was young (which is either for 10 minutes after I woke up this morning, or 36 years ago) there was a very detailed Part of the Flight Operations Manual on Loading, covering: , Bulk, Pallets, ULD's, Hold Floor Strengths, Load Spreading, Restraining Load and Lashing equipment types and advantages/disadvantages, plus ballast types and usage, also an entire section on Dangerous Goods, restrictions on and Handling of, plus Human Remains, Live Animals, Ammunition (excluding what is now Article 51 of the ANO) etc.
Just taking dangerous goods as an example for those involved on a day to day basis this is now a three day course leading to certification (which has to be renewed after two years). For Air Crew the course is half-day, but requires refreshers.
Therfore whilst for Air Crew a two week course is probably right. For those Ground Disciplines Load Planning, Loading team Leaders and Dispatchers, the Course for Practical Loading should be at least a Week plus the three day Dangerous Goods Course.
Dangerous Goods is one of the few areas where training has improved . I hope that in other areas Load Planners and head loaders are still trained in Spreading, Restraint and the other basics like not to put AVI with HUM.
On a lighter note, does anyone remember the infamous:
Snake Bites Loader, Snake Dies incident at Gatwick circa 1976?
eighings etc... and a week to cover all the ins and outs of loading systems.
Just taking dangerous goods as an example for those involved on a day to day basis this is now a three day course leading to certification (which has to be renewed after two years). For Air Crew the course is half-day, but requires refreshers.
Therfore whilst for Air Crew a two week course is probably right. For those Ground Disciplines Load Planning, Loading team Leaders and Dispatchers, the Course for Practical Loading should be at least a Week plus the three day Dangerous Goods Course.
Dangerous Goods is one of the few areas where training has improved . I hope that in other areas Load Planners and head loaders are still trained in Spreading, Restraint and the other basics like not to put AVI with HUM.
On a lighter note, does anyone remember the infamous:
Snake Bites Loader, Snake Dies incident at Gatwick circa 1976?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The traffic manuals of Dan Air and Bcal were both extremely thourough I seem to recall from the 80's. In this day and age the Air France traffic manual is excellent, but the hands on manual training seems all to have disappeared. Oh for a whizz wheel and a thick pencil!!
Moderator
In John Tullamarine's post, which I realise was from a Pilot's view point
.. actually, no. My comments derive from a 35-year weight control engineering background .. amongst my other engineering sins ....
Thoughts are
(a) typical airline pilot course - day and a half to two days to cover the (very) basics of the subject and how-to-do-it with the relevant loading system for the operation. Have run many such courses and the output appears to be adequately functional. One keeps in mind that a disciplined airline operation has a lot of support folk in the background who look after the harder nitty gritty side of the work. The pilots only need a comparatively superficial understanding although sufficient to check and detect loading/loading system execution errors.
(b) typical GA pilot course - (a) plus bits of (c) and (d) to make up for such pilots not having the organisational support that the airline folk have... say, three days.
(c) course suitable for basic weight control folk (ie those who supervise weighings, and look after routine weight change history for each aircraft) - a week (covers regulatory requirements, several weighings and paperwork, basic loading systems).
(d) course to cover design of loading systems - a week (covers the ins and outs of loading systems with heavy emphasis on the more complex systems .. paper and prayerwheel based trimsheets, spreadsheet systems).
(e) for the airline professional load control folk, I would cut (c) and (d) down to a week (no real need to do weighings and design of complex loading systems beyond a reasonable understanding) plus, certainly, a week or two on all the matters raised in Opssys' post.
.. actually, no. My comments derive from a 35-year weight control engineering background .. amongst my other engineering sins ....
Thoughts are
(a) typical airline pilot course - day and a half to two days to cover the (very) basics of the subject and how-to-do-it with the relevant loading system for the operation. Have run many such courses and the output appears to be adequately functional. One keeps in mind that a disciplined airline operation has a lot of support folk in the background who look after the harder nitty gritty side of the work. The pilots only need a comparatively superficial understanding although sufficient to check and detect loading/loading system execution errors.
(b) typical GA pilot course - (a) plus bits of (c) and (d) to make up for such pilots not having the organisational support that the airline folk have... say, three days.
(c) course suitable for basic weight control folk (ie those who supervise weighings, and look after routine weight change history for each aircraft) - a week (covers regulatory requirements, several weighings and paperwork, basic loading systems).
(d) course to cover design of loading systems - a week (covers the ins and outs of loading systems with heavy emphasis on the more complex systems .. paper and prayerwheel based trimsheets, spreadsheet systems).
(e) for the airline professional load control folk, I would cut (c) and (d) down to a week (no real need to do weighings and design of complex loading systems beyond a reasonable understanding) plus, certainly, a week or two on all the matters raised in Opssys' post.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 79
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder, what answer would you get if you asked the 'todays' load controller where each particular aircrafts moment-of-arm is measured from?
For once I don't feel I'm a lone voice in the wind 
I too learnt the trade back when it required understanding and knowledge
Sadly these days I think it's rarely true .... only the other day I heard someone advise ground of an estimated 30 min delay as they were waiting for the handling agent to find someone who could do a manual loadsheet
When I was trained we were warned that a system failure more than ten minutes before departure could not be used as a valid departure delay reason.
Also remember once working out the trim effect of passenger(s) on the shorts 330 going from row 1 to the toilet
I must really be getting old
I too learnt the trade back when it required understanding and knowledge
Sadly these days I think it's rarely true .... only the other day I heard someone advise ground of an estimated 30 min delay as they were waiting for the handling agent to find someone who could do a manual loadsheet
When I was trained we were warned that a system failure more than ten minutes before departure could not be used as a valid departure delay reason.
Also remember once working out the trim effect of passenger(s) on the shorts 330 going from row 1 to the toilet
I must really be getting old
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of adding to the 'in my day' views my ten penny worth.
In the 30+ years since I training in what was then know as Weight and Balance and is now called Mass and Balance the move to computer calculated and generated documentation has changed the whole face of Load Control. The delights of the drop line, the trim wheel and indicies are all familiar and I was more than happy to learn new systems or new aircraft specifics.
Over many years of creating flight documentation it always surprised me how few flight crew could actually do their own paperwork; this was brought home to me when I had to run training courses (c.1984) for a regional airline to ensure that their crews could do their own paperwork at a European airport where the locals were on strike. It was like having 'new ones' in the office. Yes they understood flight dynamics, yes they understood the limitations but actually doing load and trim calculations in the time frames required was 'challenging' for the vast majority.
Times have moved on.
Departure Control Systems are, in current times, incredibly reliable. The issues for the airlines and the ground handling companies when it comes to training manual mass and balance is the likelihood, or not, of the individual practicing those skill at a level to which they can be maintained. In today's OTP driven market the risks of doing live manual departures at large airports where communications are geared for DCS is not without it's issues. The fail safes in the DCS's will not allow critical mistakes to be made; over weight, out of trim etc. is all flagged if the operator tries to enter incorrect information.
An added advantage of DCS is that the airline can change the basic weights or balance settings for an aircraft which becomes active across their whole network at a stroke; no long winded manual updates, manual update receipts etc.
My view is that all Dispatchers should understand the basics of aerodynamics and the effect of weight on balance. They need to be able to read AND UNDERSTAND the computer generated loading instructions and loadsheets. They also need to be able to cross check these manually.
There will always be a place for Mass and Balance specialists in the small market of specialised cargo carriers or 'one-off' charter market.
I also think that the market will move more and more to centralised load control facilities, especially at the smaller airports. The skills will be concentrated in specialist areas and with competencies maintained.
In todays market the cost of training DCS mass and balance is one of the drivers. The airlines do not want to invest in this and so rely on the integrity of their, or their contracted, computer systems. To add the costs of individuals being trained in an area that they are unlikely to use in their jobs is not something most CEO's or FD's will approve.
In a similar vein, is it fair to compare the skills needed, and the training provided to gather such skills, on todays flightdecks with those required in the 60's and 70's?
This is the industry we are now in.
GH
In the 30+ years since I training in what was then know as Weight and Balance and is now called Mass and Balance the move to computer calculated and generated documentation has changed the whole face of Load Control. The delights of the drop line, the trim wheel and indicies are all familiar and I was more than happy to learn new systems or new aircraft specifics.
Over many years of creating flight documentation it always surprised me how few flight crew could actually do their own paperwork; this was brought home to me when I had to run training courses (c.1984) for a regional airline to ensure that their crews could do their own paperwork at a European airport where the locals were on strike. It was like having 'new ones' in the office. Yes they understood flight dynamics, yes they understood the limitations but actually doing load and trim calculations in the time frames required was 'challenging' for the vast majority.
Times have moved on.
Departure Control Systems are, in current times, incredibly reliable. The issues for the airlines and the ground handling companies when it comes to training manual mass and balance is the likelihood, or not, of the individual practicing those skill at a level to which they can be maintained. In today's OTP driven market the risks of doing live manual departures at large airports where communications are geared for DCS is not without it's issues. The fail safes in the DCS's will not allow critical mistakes to be made; over weight, out of trim etc. is all flagged if the operator tries to enter incorrect information.
An added advantage of DCS is that the airline can change the basic weights or balance settings for an aircraft which becomes active across their whole network at a stroke; no long winded manual updates, manual update receipts etc.
My view is that all Dispatchers should understand the basics of aerodynamics and the effect of weight on balance. They need to be able to read AND UNDERSTAND the computer generated loading instructions and loadsheets. They also need to be able to cross check these manually.
There will always be a place for Mass and Balance specialists in the small market of specialised cargo carriers or 'one-off' charter market.
I also think that the market will move more and more to centralised load control facilities, especially at the smaller airports. The skills will be concentrated in specialist areas and with competencies maintained.
In todays market the cost of training DCS mass and balance is one of the drivers. The airlines do not want to invest in this and so rely on the integrity of their, or their contracted, computer systems. To add the costs of individuals being trained in an area that they are unlikely to use in their jobs is not something most CEO's or FD's will approve.
In a similar vein, is it fair to compare the skills needed, and the training provided to gather such skills, on todays flightdecks with those required in the 60's and 70's?
This is the industry we are now in.
GH
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Core Competencies
As Groundhand as written, times have changed and whilst I believe there is a need to train the fundamentals of load control (probably through City and Guilds type courses), the likely hood of these being applied on a daily basis are increasing limited to certain niche operations.
With DCS System Load Control Modules and Load Planning tools the detailed knowledge level doesn't have to high to Load Plan and to transmit a Loadsheet except for those staff dealing with the semi-permanent data entries for the DCS and of course those calculating what those entries will be.
My concern, hopefully unfounded, is that these staff will increasingly labelled Administrative Support and under trained, under appreciated, under paid and yet these will be the people with the Core Competencies.
Also I am being parochial in that whilst training in the UK has changed, in some other countries the basics of each discipline are still taught as a matter of course, so maybe we just outsource these functions.
With DCS System Load Control Modules and Load Planning tools the detailed knowledge level doesn't have to high to Load Plan and to transmit a Loadsheet except for those staff dealing with the semi-permanent data entries for the DCS and of course those calculating what those entries will be.
My concern, hopefully unfounded, is that these staff will increasingly labelled Administrative Support and under trained, under appreciated, under paid and yet these will be the people with the Core Competencies.
Also I am being parochial in that whilst training in the UK has changed, in some other countries the basics of each discipline are still taught as a matter of course, so maybe we just outsource these functions.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was surprised a few years ago that a cargo handling comany at LHR didn't explain in basic training the safety/ops reason behind check weighing cargo - only the commercial aspect of Air Waybill weight for revenue recovery was taught. Also often the scales at the doors were not calibrated or didn't work.
This handling company had its origins as KLM cargo and the staff that joined and trained during KLM's time were given as part of a comprehensive course training as to why check weighing cargo on arrival was important. So with a new generation not being given this info incorrect weight cargo could get through and cause an incident or worse a fatal accident!?
Personally I did all the C & G courses at East Surrey College in the early 90's and found them really useful though even by then the course material was getting dated.
What ever systems people learn if they are not taught in context they might miss the relevance and signicance of what they do as a job.
This handling company had its origins as KLM cargo and the staff that joined and trained during KLM's time were given as part of a comprehensive course training as to why check weighing cargo on arrival was important. So with a new generation not being given this info incorrect weight cargo could get through and cause an incident or worse a fatal accident!?
Personally I did all the C & G courses at East Surrey College in the early 90's and found them really useful though even by then the course material was getting dated.
What ever systems people learn if they are not taught in context they might miss the relevance and signicance of what they do as a job.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF still teaches w&b from basics to its Movement Controllers.
a friend of mine on a recent w&b course in DUB told me that his instructor didn't know what she was talking about and all her students bar him failed the final exam.
I can see disasters in the future arising from a lack of basic competence.
a friend of mine on a recent w&b course in DUB told me that his instructor didn't know what she was talking about and all her students bar him failed the final exam.
I can see disasters in the future arising from a lack of basic competence.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instructor Knowledge
I have just read the post from MSF:
This is probably a case of good Instructors can teach anything methodology . An approach that demands the Documentation is written by those who do know the subject inside out and have taught it, so know the range of questions and queries those on the course will ask. Then the nominated instructor will still require preparation time to learn the course documentation and time to be fully prepared for each lesson.
Although I find the process counter intuitive, it does work, providing:
A Good Instructor, Top Class Documentation and sufficient preparation time. If any of these requirements NOT met, then those on the course are wasting their time and someone's money.
It appears that MSF friend had a course where none of the above requirements appear to have been met.
a friend of mine on a recent w&b course in DUB told me that his instructor didn't know what she was talking about and all her students bar him failed the final exam.
Although I find the process counter intuitive, it does work, providing:
A Good Instructor, Top Class Documentation and sufficient preparation time. If any of these requirements NOT met, then those on the course are wasting their time and someone's money.
It appears that MSF friend had a course where none of the above requirements appear to have been met.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North East
Age: 37
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Times have moved on.
I was told by my trainer that as long as we understood all the terms given on a loadsheet (DCS generated or manual), and the basic principles behind them, we would be fine. An understanding of the relationships between indices, MAC and Stab trim is a prime example. As long as we can have a relatively intelligent conversation with the flight crew about various situations (bearing in mind they are trained to a far higher level than you), 99% of the time you'll be fine.
Some of the more obscure things mentioned in this thread really have extremely limited value in commercial airline operations. If I put 100 bags in the back of a 737 or two bins in the front of an A320 do I really need to know about Hold Floor Strengths or the advantages/disadvantages of certain types of lashing? I say no.
And my record time for a manual loadsheet (A321)... 4 min 48 secs. My pencil was on fire after that one
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have just read Jerboys post:
When I was actually involved in such things Flight Deck would request advice from Load Control wwhen on rare occasions they had to do their own Loadsheets, weight and balance and provide a trim for loading.
On one occasion the Captain decided he knew better and as it was a semi-ferry ignored the advice given and a nasty incident occurred.
If your simply dealing wth Passenger Baggage on Charter Flights standard trims for the various Aircraft Types handled become almost second nature.
Once Cargo becomes involved then a little more thinking is required especially on bulk loaded aircraft. Spreader Boards are not always required just for HEA Items, but for point loads if the items weight is only carried on a few points, etc. A big item may mean a little lateral thinking about whether to deviate from the simple load plan and load it i say hold two instead of three and lash it. But hey you seem happy wih 99%, so OK, but I was brought up in a different era when Safety is no Accident wasn't just a 'sound bite' and 99% really wasn't good enough.
Assuming you started from a blamk form and trim chart and, the time included the simple cross check, then that is extremely impressive. Although why you only had that amount of time is of slight concern, but I do accept that an experienced Loadsheet Basher can get it right and be extremely quick as long as another warning from long ago is remembered:
Accuracy is vital speed is secondary.
ntelligent conversation with the flight crew about various situations (bearing in mind they are trained to a far higher level than you), 99% of the time you'll be fine.
On one occasion the Captain decided he knew better and as it was a semi-ferry ignored the advice given and a nasty incident occurred.
If I put 100 bags in the back of a 737 or two bins in the front of an A320 do I really need to know about Hold Floor Strengths or the advantages/disadvantages of certain types of lashing? I say no.
Once Cargo becomes involved then a little more thinking is required especially on bulk loaded aircraft. Spreader Boards are not always required just for HEA Items, but for point loads if the items weight is only carried on a few points, etc. A big item may mean a little lateral thinking about whether to deviate from the simple load plan and load it i say hold two instead of three and lash it. But hey you seem happy wih 99%, so OK, but I was brought up in a different era when Safety is no Accident wasn't just a 'sound bite' and 99% really wasn't good enough.
And my record time for a manual loadsheet (A321)... 4 min 48 secs. My pencil was on fire after that one
Accuracy is vital speed is secondary.