Overloaded A-320
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overloaded A-320
Just got to know that a Gulf Air A-320 took off for Mumbai with an error of 11,000 kgs in the load sheet.
The aeroplane was loaded to 11 tonnes over the given weight figure!
Thank goodness there was no engine failure!
Apparently, the crew realized it in flight, and then held over Mumbai for over an hour, to bring the weight below the maximum landing weight.
Details?
Comments?
The aeroplane was loaded to 11 tonnes over the given weight figure!
Thank goodness there was no engine failure!
Apparently, the crew realized it in flight, and then held over Mumbai for over an hour, to bring the weight below the maximum landing weight.
Details?
Comments?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know nuthin' 'bout no a-320..but if he only held for one hour to burn to lndg weight, how much over max rtow could it have been...doesn't seem like much to me...not quite like the 100 ton mistake at sq recently nyway.."let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Not in my country!!
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flight plan ezfw was closed to max(60.5) tankering sector up to max landing weight. crew were given an actual zfw of 49.5? with a full cabin!!!!!!!!!! so they decided to fill it up cause they were no restricted to max landing weight 49.5+18.4=67.9.
takeoff speed and flex were taken based on takeoff weight of 67.7
having a full load a/c going to bom u expecting at least a 59 to 60.5 actual zfw and no less than that!!!!!!! crew were happy that a full a320 going to bom had a actual zfw of 49.5
noone questioned each other if that was normal???? they were happy with the numbers!!!!!!!!!!
actual zfw was 60 instead of 49.5(load sheet error,or dry operating tonnes error)and thats makes a actual takeoff weigth of 78.2(1.2 tonnes more than the max structural weight!!!!!!!!)
basically they took off with 78.2 using speeds and flex of 67.7
crew never questioned the actual zfw that was given to them against common sence, never questioned that they needed 40% n1 to keep it rolling for taxi, something which is abnormal(a320 needs no power to start moving specially on 68 tonnes)
they took off using flex, never spotted the slow acceleration never used toga for the takeoff, and what happenned next i leave it to u imagination!!!!!!
they continue to bom on their opt altitude arrived there and hold for another 1and a half to 2 hours to burn fuel to make a safe landing within the numbers(64.5 max landing weight)
they have not even think since they continued the flight to stay low level and burn that fuel instead of holding over bom for the same reason.
investigation is going on! and both of them are still on line!!!!!!!!?????????????
takeoff speed and flex were taken based on takeoff weight of 67.7
having a full load a/c going to bom u expecting at least a 59 to 60.5 actual zfw and no less than that!!!!!!! crew were happy that a full a320 going to bom had a actual zfw of 49.5
noone questioned each other if that was normal???? they were happy with the numbers!!!!!!!!!!
actual zfw was 60 instead of 49.5(load sheet error,or dry operating tonnes error)and thats makes a actual takeoff weigth of 78.2(1.2 tonnes more than the max structural weight!!!!!!!!)
basically they took off with 78.2 using speeds and flex of 67.7
crew never questioned the actual zfw that was given to them against common sence, never questioned that they needed 40% n1 to keep it rolling for taxi, something which is abnormal(a320 needs no power to start moving specially on 68 tonnes)
they took off using flex, never spotted the slow acceleration never used toga for the takeoff, and what happenned next i leave it to u imagination!!!!!!
they continue to bom on their opt altitude arrived there and hold for another 1and a half to 2 hours to burn fuel to make a safe landing within the numbers(64.5 max landing weight)
they have not even think since they continued the flight to stay low level and burn that fuel instead of holding over bom for the same reason.
investigation is going on! and both of them are still on line!!!!!!!!?????????????
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: N571
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This trim sheet stinks!
It is not unheard of in airline ops, to ever so once in a while, get a trim sheet which is grossly out.
So if the fltcrew is not too preoccupied,they should be able to detect it from familiarity with the numbers.
A Singapore 747 suffered a major tailstrike on rotation,when the numbers were out by a 100 tons.
So moral of the story---stay focused folks !
Happy Landings!
So if the fltcrew is not too preoccupied,they should be able to detect it from familiarity with the numbers.
A Singapore 747 suffered a major tailstrike on rotation,when the numbers were out by a 100 tons.
So moral of the story---stay focused folks !
Happy Landings!
