Aircraft loaded in accordance with load plan? A pilot responsibility?
Thread Starter
Aircraft loaded in accordance with load plan? A pilot responsibility?
I came across the following ATSB report about a loading incident involving one of this country's largest freight operators:
Investigation: AO-2013-044 - Weight and balance event involving Fairchild SA-227AC, VH-UUO, Melbourne Airport on 30 January 2013
The pilot reported the incident after control difficulties in flight. The investigation revealed a number of organisational failures, including:
How exactly does a pilot ensure the aircraft is loaded in accordance with the load plan? Does the pilot supervise every single box being weighed and loaded on to the aircraft in the previous hours? I think not. They rely on 'professionals' doing their job and providing the load details to a pilot who confirms it is all within a weight and balance envelope by using a trim sheet. I'm sure the pilot's trim sheet looked fine when he departed, yet still had problems.
To all you Bankstown, Brisbane and Melbourne freight pilots please keep your eyes very wide open. The ATSB has not come down hard on the company and again more responsibility is thrown on the pilot. If your aircraft won't climb after takeoff on one engine because it is XXX kg overloaded, you may now be responsible.
Investigation: AO-2013-044 - Weight and balance event involving Fairchild SA-227AC, VH-UUO, Melbourne Airport on 30 January 2013
The pilot reported the incident after control difficulties in flight. The investigation revealed a number of organisational failures, including:
- The supervisor and ground personnel had not been trained in the loading procedure for the aircraft
- No strict control over the weight being loaded in to each zone
- A certain amount of estimating weights
A Safety Alert was issued to all pilots to advise of several freight loading
occurrences reminding pilots that they are to remove the cargo support strut and that they are to ensure that the aircraft is loaded in accordance with the load plan.
occurrences reminding pilots that they are to remove the cargo support strut and that they are to ensure that the aircraft is loaded in accordance with the load plan.
To all you Bankstown, Brisbane and Melbourne freight pilots please keep your eyes very wide open. The ATSB has not come down hard on the company and again more responsibility is thrown on the pilot. If your aircraft won't climb after takeoff on one engine because it is XXX kg overloaded, you may now be responsible.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oriana, I think so. Would you be referring to the AN BAE146 doing ISA/BNE with a single piece of mining equipment loaded compliantly within C of G but unfortunately not locked down to the floor? If not then I am thinking of something else. The crew lost control and were fortunate enough to recover it. I thought the pallet moved during climb, close to cruising altitude. By miracle it didn't shift on rotation? I think this happened around 97/98? I was working for the opposition at the time and my memory is a bit hazy these days but I sure as **** remember some interesting occurrences back in the 80/90's that went relatively 'unnoticed' by the regulatory gulag 
And yes mate, this has been happening for how long? If FF spent some time kicking around our less 'mature' aerodromes late at night they would proverbially **** themselves if they saw what goes on
And yes mate, this has been happening for how long? If FF spent some time kicking around our less 'mature' aerodromes late at night they would proverbially **** themselves if they saw what goes on
Last edited by 004wercras; 17th Sep 2013 at 09:01.
How exactly does a pilot ensure the aircraft is loaded in accordance with the load plan? Does the pilot supervise every single box being weighed and loaded on to the aircraft in the previous hours? I think not. They rely on 'professionals' doing their job and providing the load details to a pilot who confirms it is all within a weight and balance envelope by using a trim sheet. I'm sure the pilot's trim sheet looked fine when he departed, yet still had problems.
Thread Starter
Yes, but what happens when everything is hand stacked (not in pallets) with up to 100 boxes in each cargo zone? Can you see what I'm getting at? I believe a metro holds up to 2 tonnes, an ATR around 4.5 and SAAB somewhere in between.
Guesstimating freight weights is nothing new, but how can the pilot be responsible for making sure the plane is actually loaded according to the plan? We're not talking about a few boxes in the back of a 182.
The problem is CASA don't get out of bed in the middle of the night to check up on operators.
Guesstimating freight weights is nothing new, but how can the pilot be responsible for making sure the plane is actually loaded according to the plan? We're not talking about a few boxes in the back of a 182.
The problem is CASA don't get out of bed in the middle of the night to check up on operators.
Pilots may be putting themselves at legal risk whenever they sign any statement that starts with the words "Certified that....." Unless you loaded it yourself, how CAN you be sure the weight and balance is within limits ? Or when you sign the tech log, while you may believe it is airworthy (or you surely wouldn't be flying it) you can not guarantee it.
When you buy from a self-service bowser, these days you can't even be 100% sure that the fuel you are taking on board meets specification. But at least you can sniff it and taste it, which is more than you can do with pallets of cargo or maintenance releases.
Better to strike out any incriminating words and insert weasel words such as "To the best of my knowledge...." or "Based on the information I have been supplied with...." Get a rubber stamp made up with weasel words according to the document and apply it before signing.
If you are really paranoid, you could also ensure that your employment contract indemnifies you against the actions of others and equipment failure/damage.
You could be sacked or CASA may go after you for being such a recalcitrant, but wouldn't it make for an interesting court case?
When you buy from a self-service bowser, these days you can't even be 100% sure that the fuel you are taking on board meets specification. But at least you can sniff it and taste it, which is more than you can do with pallets of cargo or maintenance releases.
Better to strike out any incriminating words and insert weasel words such as "To the best of my knowledge...." or "Based on the information I have been supplied with...." Get a rubber stamp made up with weasel words according to the document and apply it before signing.
If you are really paranoid, you could also ensure that your employment contract indemnifies you against the actions of others and equipment failure/damage.
You could be sacked or CASA may go after you for being such a recalcitrant, but wouldn't it make for an interesting court case?
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 18th Sep 2013 at 08:37.
Mach,
Given our increasingly litigious society putting a "weasel" statement above your signature shouldnt be a problem if you have doubts re the competence of those providing you with info you cannot personally verify or just to clarify the point that you couldn't personally verify the info provided.
An indemnity clause is actually a good idea, being responsible for ones own actions/work. In the end it is the crew and pax that are directly in harms way if anything goes wrong, not the admin staff, loaders, mechanics etc on whose work and skills they must rely.
As you said the pilot wasn't there to weigh every item and see where it was loaded etc and like the Capt of a ship has to rely on others doing their jobs properly.
If the company or CASA FOI don't like it, you can explain why you do it and as you said will be interesting if anything goes wrong and it ends up in court. They certainly cover their A***** in doing their jobs and if they screw up they are not directly held legally responsible for their actions/decisions and have Govt deep pockets to cover them legally.
We have seen all that happening in past few years with their oversight/ surveillance of certain companies involved in several major incidents/accidents that have been widely discussed on PPRUNE and what happened to the crews involved.
It is the same when you travel internationally and arrive at customs, you can say you packed your own bag and knew what was in it up until when you checked in and handed it over to the airline but now you have no idea what might be in it as it has been out of your sight and control for X amount of time and handled by how many people??.
Given our increasingly litigious society putting a "weasel" statement above your signature shouldnt be a problem if you have doubts re the competence of those providing you with info you cannot personally verify or just to clarify the point that you couldn't personally verify the info provided.
An indemnity clause is actually a good idea, being responsible for ones own actions/work. In the end it is the crew and pax that are directly in harms way if anything goes wrong, not the admin staff, loaders, mechanics etc on whose work and skills they must rely.
As you said the pilot wasn't there to weigh every item and see where it was loaded etc and like the Capt of a ship has to rely on others doing their jobs properly.
If the company or CASA FOI don't like it, you can explain why you do it and as you said will be interesting if anything goes wrong and it ends up in court. They certainly cover their A***** in doing their jobs and if they screw up they are not directly held legally responsible for their actions/decisions and have Govt deep pockets to cover them legally.
We have seen all that happening in past few years with their oversight/ surveillance of certain companies involved in several major incidents/accidents that have been widely discussed on PPRUNE and what happened to the crews involved.
It is the same when you travel internationally and arrive at customs, you can say you packed your own bag and knew what was in it up until when you checked in and handed it over to the airline but now you have no idea what might be in it as it has been out of your sight and control for X amount of time and handled by how many people??.
Last edited by aussie027; 19th Sep 2013 at 05:31.
A friend who is a former QC told me to use the following words: Q: "is this your bag?" A: " it looks like my bag., Q: "did you pack this bag?" A: "it looks like the bag I packed." And so on. you also never say "no" to a question from authority,p you say "I reject that" - rejecting the entire question. Politicians do this all the time, that way they do not have to lie.
Last edited by Sunfish; 21st Sep 2013 at 21:20.
Something similar happened to me one night out of Sydney. Paper work was all correct but during the cruise the aircraft was very twitchy in pitch. C of G was too far aft and I was experiencing neutral stability, i.e. the tendency to remain in a new position when displaced rather than return to the old one.
As the aircraft bulked out while being loaded, the C of G was pushed rearward. Basically too much weight in the back and not enough in the front, even though it was floor to ceiling at the forward cargo net.
As the aircraft bulked out while being loaded, the C of G was pushed rearward. Basically too much weight in the back and not enough in the front, even though it was floor to ceiling at the forward cargo net.
