Loadie / FlyingSpanner, pros & cons

[FlyingSpannerMan]

An well-established airline I know of has put forward the idea of Flying Spanners being trained as Loadies, it's certainly not something we'd entertain on our freighters.

What comments would those who've been in the cargo business for a bit longer have about this? Is it a good idea? Are there any pros or cons? Is their a danger to one person trying to do 2 jobs? Can an aircraft (we're talking widebodied freighters, operated to less desirible locations) safely be loaded by someone who may be busy fixing it?

Comments / observations welcome!

FSM

[fat-controller]

Sounds like the bean counters are at it again. What an absolute recipe for disaster. Its bad enough doing one important and critical job without having to double the workload on an individual during the turnround. How would one prioritise the work? Being a loadie and flying to the depths of Africa usually with a flying spanner I cant see how it could possibly work for the benefit of a cargo outfit. Sure some turnrounds are easy and everything goes smoothly (about 20%) but when the proverbial hits the fan for either party (80% of the time) then the chances that mistakes are going to be made will be a lot higher. I certainly wouldn't entertain fixing ([enter task here]) on no.3 engine whilst trying to load a 110T of freight in a country where they dont understand that if you put 30t in the tail you could end up looking for a very long ladder to reach the engine!
Nuff said. Glad its not our company.

[Hangin' on]

Perhaps the fat controller should stick to his train set....we at 'the only Dutch airline' have been flying the 747 with GE qualified Flight Engineers for many many years. This saves the company a literally fantastic aount of money.....100,000 euros in hong kong alone!! This method of working is utterly dependent on two things....strong engineering support on the end of the phone/satcom, and a adherence to a robust flight time limitations policy. These, together with the support of the other crew members, makes this a very efficient (and safe) way to work.

[Engineer]

we at 'the only Dutch airline' have been flying the 747 with GE qualified Flight Engineers

Think the question was about ground engineers doubling up as the loadmaster. Not a FE using is maintainence licence coverage.

But pursuing the point of the GE trained as an FE it would be interesting to see how this company get round the FTLs especially the rest period after the flight if the FE has to carry out any form of extended rectification?

[Nineiron]

Having worked for many years in the dual role loadmaster ( bulk loading - not the easy ro-ro stuff) and licenced flying spanner let me re assure the Fat Controller that it is not as bad as it seems. The ability and facilities to sleep during cruise are paramount as it was normal not to see a hotel for two or three days at a time.

Indeed, the problem arises when time has to be demanded to fix something on the aircraft. There is no question of attempting to load/offload at the same time as this require full attention, as does the responsibility of signing off the tech log. A neccessary qualification is a thick skin, able to take the blame for delays.

The cost effectiveness is a matter for the individual company:
How often are your aircraft grounded by defects outside the MEL?
What maintenance organisations are available on your route network?
What quantity of spares, without which you can't achieve very much, is your company prepared to carry with the aircraft?
Is it a waste of a qualified engineer to fly around the route, compared with positioning him when required?

I assume your aircraft type carries a Flight Engineer. A small freight company is no place for carrying apprentice pilots in the FE seat. A Professional Flight Engineer with both air and ground tickets is what is really cost effective.

[Flip Flop Flyer]

I've done a few loadie trips to the darks of Africa, and wouldn't contemplate doing MX work while the aircraft was being loaded/unloadedn (and that's not just because I'm useless with a spanner). Many a time I've hardly had the time to complete the loadsheet on paper, basically only providing the stick monkeys with a TOW, MAC% and a stab trim before take-off and then completing the paperwork just prior to TOD, since turing your back to the loading/unloading operation for just a second might very well end in tears and long ladders.

But I'm sure the idea looks brilliant on a spreadsheet

[Hangin' on]

I assume your aircraft type carries a Flight Engineer. A small freight company is no place for carrying apprentice pilots in the FE seat. A Professional Flight Engineer with both air and ground tickets is what is really cost effective.

Exactly. As for ideas looking good on a spreadsheet making you feel sick...in the cargo world those without spreadsheets, (and pretty smart people to operate them), have plenty of sick time while waiting for their next job.....

[RampTramp]

Way back when, a certain UK based CL44 operator used what were called FME's (Flight Maintenance Engineers), qualified both as ground engineers and loadmasters. They certainly proved their worth, offload aircraft, fix any 'stopper' problem & load aircraft. As Nineiron said, the ability to sleep in the cruise was essential as, not being hours limited, they could work all the time the aircraft was on the ground while the crew were getting their 12 hours horizontal. If the route was covered by a slip crew, then there were 2 FME's available, one to load & one to 'fix'.

I'm sure it did look good on the balance sheet but it also got a lot of aircraft back in the air quicker than waiting for a ground engineer to arrive on site!

Don't knock it until you've tried it!

RT