EasyJet passengers told 'get off the plane or you will be arrested'
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sunny Sussex
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've crossed swords with a few in this discussion, but I have to say SC, that the ever decreasing circles you are running in have you at risk of disappearing up your own fundament!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The document appears to be the translation of an Italian accident report. It is 366 pages long. Rather than suggesting that people read it "and similar documents" why don't you do the sensible thing, and direct people to the points that you feel are salient to your argument, and to the discussion in this thread concerning this particular event?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Age: 74
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns
I'm consulting my lawyers.
Who deals with it then - Cabin Crew, Office Secretaries ? or Engineers and Technical Crew in conjunction with Traffic Staff ?
!!!!! Clearly you come from another Planet
Some people are claiming to be captains yet posting very basic silly mistakes........
A fuel overload is NOT technical.
!!!!! Clearly you come from another Planet
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yorkshire tyke excellent question.
Who does deal with an overfuelled aircraft and who must legally deal with an overfuelled aircraft?
Many airlines request their engineers to deal with fuelling in general. Many don't. The reason many don't is because it is not maintenance and does not require qualified engineers to perform the job.
Tyre pressures however are technical and it is considered a maintenance task. The subtle difference is that an over pressurised tyre is not in accordance with the maintenance manual, does require an approved engineer and a release to service. All of which has legal implications.
Too much fuel is too much fuel yet the aircraft is still within the maintenance manual limits and does not legally require a release to service. This makes a huge legal difference.
An engineer may out of the goodness of his heart assist any apparently responsible person who allowed such a gross refuelling error take place but the problem remains non technical.
It is that simple and no, not even Nicholas can argue around it.
Who does deal with an overfuelled aircraft and who must legally deal with an overfuelled aircraft?
Many airlines request their engineers to deal with fuelling in general. Many don't. The reason many don't is because it is not maintenance and does not require qualified engineers to perform the job.
Tyre pressures however are technical and it is considered a maintenance task. The subtle difference is that an over pressurised tyre is not in accordance with the maintenance manual, does require an approved engineer and a release to service. All of which has legal implications.
Too much fuel is too much fuel yet the aircraft is still within the maintenance manual limits and does not legally require a release to service. This makes a huge legal difference.
An engineer may out of the goodness of his heart assist any apparently responsible person who allowed such a gross refuelling error take place but the problem remains non technical.
It is that simple and no, not even Nicholas can argue around it.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The subtle difference is that an over pressurised tyre is not in accordance with the maintenance manual, does require an approved engineer and a release to service.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Chuchinchow...looks like the more, the merrier. 
As a complete outsider to this "trade", I'd like to place the observation that irrespective of box-ticking, arse-covering jobsworth-ism,
An aeroplane sitting on an overloaded undercarriage, unsafe to take off, is "technically" unfit for it's intended purpose. given the legal framework within which it is supposed to be operated, an attempt to operate it in an overloaded condition (evacuation from Saigon excepted
) is probably illegal also.
The primary reason the aircraft was unfit to fly, is that the undercarriage/engines/wings/airframe safety-margins were deemed inadequate for the safe moving of the load.....doesn't matter a damn HOW it became overloaded, it was legally incapable of safe operation with the original load.
If that's not a technical cause , i'd love to know what IS, in your arcane, parallel universe.
As a complete outsider to this "trade", I'd like to place the observation that irrespective of box-ticking, arse-covering jobsworth-ism,
An aeroplane sitting on an overloaded undercarriage, unsafe to take off, is "technically" unfit for it's intended purpose. given the legal framework within which it is supposed to be operated, an attempt to operate it in an overloaded condition (evacuation from Saigon excepted
) is probably illegal also.The primary reason the aircraft was unfit to fly, is that the undercarriage/engines/wings/airframe safety-margins were deemed inadequate for the safe moving of the load.....doesn't matter a damn HOW it became overloaded, it was legally incapable of safe operation with the original load.
If that's not a technical cause , i'd love to know what IS, in your arcane, parallel universe.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cockney Steve
I think you misunderstand the proponents arguments, so let me try to explain (but note I am not taking sides.)
An aircraft can depart legally if it is within its weight parameters, so long as it is not above the MTOW (maximum take off weight.) However, it must also plan to arrive within its maximum landing weight.
So the aircraft may be okay to take off, but not to land and the captain cannot depart under those circumstances (see Hunter 58's post.)
The other argument is whether the aircraft sitting with excess fuel is a technical or non technical matter.
Safety Concerns says it is non technical, as it does not require an engineer to deal with defueling and quotes IATA message codes to support his view.
Beazelbub says (as an airline captain) that an overfueled aircraft is a technical matter.
Hope this clarifies the argument for you
I think you misunderstand the proponents arguments, so let me try to explain (but note I am not taking sides.)
An aircraft can depart legally if it is within its weight parameters, so long as it is not above the MTOW (maximum take off weight.) However, it must also plan to arrive within its maximum landing weight.
So the aircraft may be okay to take off, but not to land and the captain cannot depart under those circumstances (see Hunter 58's post.)
The other argument is whether the aircraft sitting with excess fuel is a technical or non technical matter.
Safety Concerns says it is non technical, as it does not require an engineer to deal with defueling and quotes IATA message codes to support his view.
Beazelbub says (as an airline captain) that an overfueled aircraft is a technical matter.
Hope this clarifies the argument for you
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual it would help if posters actually understood what they are talking about. I am not going to give you the answer on a plate just something to consider.
What is wrong with this scenario?
I am offloading 30+ passengers and ALL baggage from a commercial aircraft because it is too heavy for take off.
Once you have thought about it and realised your error then we can revisit comments about knowledge and understanding of commercial operations.
What is wrong with this scenario?
I am offloading 30+ passengers and ALL baggage from a commercial aircraft because it is too heavy for take off.
Once you have thought about it and realised your error then we can revisit comments about knowledge and understanding of commercial operations.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamptonne
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual it would help if posters actually understood what they are talking about. I am not going to give you the answer on a plate just something to consider.
What is wrong with this scenario?
I am offloading 30+ passengers and ALL baggage from a commercial aircraft because it is too heavy for take off.
Once you have thought about it and realised your error then we can revisit comments about knowledge and understanding of commercial operations.
What is wrong with this scenario?
I am offloading 30+ passengers and ALL baggage from a commercial aircraft because it is too heavy for take off.
Once you have thought about it and realised your error then we can revisit comments about knowledge and understanding of commercial operations.
** EasyJet has, by now offered its obsequious and arse-clenching apologies to the affected passengers
** Handsome compensation cheques have taken up residence in those passengers' bank accounts.
** Any still disaffected punters might even have been offered an unknown number of free flights on EasyJet to shut them up.
** The EasyJet flight crew and the fuelling company's personnel have been read their rights pending the outcome of their respective employers' detailed investigations of the incident.
But here on PPRuNe, grown men continue arguing and bickering like fractious school children!
It's truly incredible.
Last edited by Chuchinchow; 23rd Jan 2011 at 00:49.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Age: 74
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns
You just don't give up, do you ?
Pilots, Radio Officers, Navigators, Flight Engineers, were known collectively as the TECHINCAL CREW ( Tech Crew for short ) as opposed to the CABIN CREW or TRAFFIC STAFF.
In the days when we had a Flt. Engineer, he was responsible to the Captain for ensuring that the correct fuel load - as decided by said Captain - was on board, and before signing the loadsheet and thereby taking legal command of the aircraft as Pilot-in-Charge, I would confirm with the Flt. Eng. that that was so, I didn't care who, or how, other parties responsible for ensuring that happened went about their allotted tasks, but if the figure was wrong, and sometimes it was, I would take responsibility for delaying the flight, and with the TRAFFIC and TECHNICAL CREW decide what action to take to rectify the situation.
The decision on how much fuel to carry, and ultimately ensuring that that happened was the responsibility of the TECHNICAL CREW, if a delay occurred as a result, then it was a TECHNICAL DELAY.
As the pilots have finally taken over the other TECHNICAL CREW jobs, including that of Flt. Eng. ( mistakenly in my opinion ) then the Captain or F/O now fulfils that role, and clearly all airlines set their own policy in that respect, but it obviously must rest with one of the TECHNICAL CREW to do that confirmatory job, and finally of course with the TECHNICAL CREW Captain to make the eventual decision to go or not to go.
QED, end of story, now looking for the "Ignore" button.
You just don't give up, do you ?
Pilots, Radio Officers, Navigators, Flight Engineers, were known collectively as the TECHINCAL CREW ( Tech Crew for short ) as opposed to the CABIN CREW or TRAFFIC STAFF.
In the days when we had a Flt. Engineer, he was responsible to the Captain for ensuring that the correct fuel load - as decided by said Captain - was on board, and before signing the loadsheet and thereby taking legal command of the aircraft as Pilot-in-Charge, I would confirm with the Flt. Eng. that that was so, I didn't care who, or how, other parties responsible for ensuring that happened went about their allotted tasks, but if the figure was wrong, and sometimes it was, I would take responsibility for delaying the flight, and with the TRAFFIC and TECHNICAL CREW decide what action to take to rectify the situation.
The decision on how much fuel to carry, and ultimately ensuring that that happened was the responsibility of the TECHNICAL CREW, if a delay occurred as a result, then it was a TECHNICAL DELAY.
As the pilots have finally taken over the other TECHNICAL CREW jobs, including that of Flt. Eng. ( mistakenly in my opinion ) then the Captain or F/O now fulfils that role, and clearly all airlines set their own policy in that respect, but it obviously must rest with one of the TECHNICAL CREW to do that confirmatory job, and finally of course with the TECHNICAL CREW Captain to make the eventual decision to go or not to go.
QED, end of story, now looking for the "Ignore" button.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as an ex flt engineer we agree on something. Alas you are missing the point in your honourable rush to defend the Captain of this easyjet.
I will make it easy.
1) Since when have aircraft been designed that they are above mtow will all seats occupied regardless of fuel load? (this addresses the uneducated comments about the aircraft being unsafe due to exceeding mtow)
2) a nice chappie sent me an ops manual this week from a certain airline, it says:
This deals with our laywer nicholas who stated that crew being responsible for fuelling was plainly
3) The same manual also says and I quote:
This is to deal with Bealzebub who claimed that after 25+ years as a commander he wasn't aware of these codes.
and one cracker I found almost at the end
The basis of IATA codes is to help airlines determine why a delay occurred and address any issues with the aim of prevention. The reason we have a delay code 36 (fuelling) is because it serves no useful purpose to call something technical when it isn't. An airline will find nothing in the technical departments to help them with an overfuelled aircraft because it is quite simply not a technical issue.
Investigations of these incidents will follow one of 3 paths:
delay code 36 (operational) for an aircraft overfuelled in error
delay code 40 something (technical) if an aircraft side component failed or
delay code 65 (operational) if it was flight crew error
I challenge any of you to post FACTS contradicting that position.
I will make it easy.
1) Since when have aircraft been designed that they are above mtow will all seats occupied regardless of fuel load? (this addresses the uneducated comments about the aircraft being unsafe due to exceeding mtow)
2) a nice chappie sent me an ops manual this week from a certain airline, it says:
Fuel figures based on performance limitations and / or journey requirements will be specified by the commander. Flight crew are responsible for supervising the refuelling of the aeroplane.
ridiculous
All delays exceeding 3 Minutes shall be reported by a sector log entry. For determination of the delay code, IATA standard codes shall be used. The commander should involve ground agents for delay investigation.
and one cracker I found almost at the end
For punctuality reasons, no last minute fuelling is allowed as this could result in a delay.
Investigations of these incidents will follow one of 3 paths:
delay code 36 (operational) for an aircraft overfuelled in error
delay code 40 something (technical) if an aircraft side component failed or
delay code 65 (operational) if it was flight crew error
I challenge any of you to post FACTS contradicting that position.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why I am bothering as safety concerns logic is so tortured he could probably solicit Amnesty Internationals help in resolution.
Having gone from the suggestion that the vague submission of 366 pages of an Italian accident report (and similar documents,) would make his argument clear, to the selected extracts of an anonymous companies "operations manual" It may well be that the referred document related to the airline in question? Without the content surrounding the limited extract, it is impossible to agree or disagree with the assertion or place it into any valid context.
What I actually said was:
Spot the difference? That in itself was only after Safety concerns had edited his original post in order to specify what he was alluding to. These are administrative codes used by ground handling agents. In the case of the operations manual (he is now quoting) they are also used as codes on one airlines operations returns. I haven't used them in the two airlines I have flown for. Delay codes are simply administrative, and can be anything the airline chooses. They are not authoritative, and they do not define the meaning of a word but simply give a reason or opinion for that delay having occurred.
As an ex-flight engineer he will be aware, because I remember from my own 707 days, and indeed every day since, that the commander must certify that the
"Flight crew" may well be responsible for supervising the refuelling of the airplane. However other personnel can and often are designated as refuelling supervisors.
Looking at my current "operations return" I have a selection of 16 administrative delay codes. There is not one for "fuelling" but there is one for "technical." The 16th is "other" for anything that in my opinion (I am not required to agree a reason with ground staff or anybody else unless I deem fit,) constitutes the reason or opinion for that delay. The point being that it is administrative, varies from company to company, and defines nothing in itself.
I presently have in front of me a copy of the aircrafts Technical log. On the page that I am required to certify prior to dispatch, there are a number of additional certificates that either may or must be completed prior to my certification. These certificates can be completed by other persons charged with the completion of that task. Part 3 of the Technical log is the fuelling certificate. This can be signed by the flight crew or a ground engineer. It states:
It doesn't certify that the fuel is either too much or too little. It simply certifies that the shown amount and distribution between tanks is as described . Of course it in itself doesn't need to because of the wording of the Captains certificate as shown above.
Now in trying to persuade you with the "facts" that you seek, and in accepting that as an ex-flight engineer you will be au fait with the legality of the Technical log, that document contains nothing to do with administrative matters (delays, crew hours, etc.) It only contains technical requirements and the certificates needed to ensure compliance with those technical requirements. (certificate of release to service, de-icing certificate, fuelling certificate, captains certificate etc.)
Could you perhaps explain to me (as if I were simple) why the Technical log contains two certificates that relate to fuelling, if as you assert fuelling is not a technical issue?
As fascinating and relevant as you clearly find it, could you do so without suggesting that the trade body IATA is in some way supreme to the point in question?
Having gone from the suggestion that the vague submission of 366 pages of an Italian accident report (and similar documents,) would make his argument clear, to the selected extracts of an anonymous companies "operations manual" It may well be that the referred document related to the airline in question? Without the content surrounding the limited extract, it is impossible to agree or disagree with the assertion or place it into any valid context.
This is to deal with Bealzebub who claimed that after 25+ years as a commander he wasn't aware of these codes.
I have never used these in 30+ years of airline flying. Possibly because they are codes normally used by ground handling agents as part of their SITA dispatch messages.
As an ex-flight engineer he will be aware, because I remember from my own 707 days, and indeed every day since, that the commander must certify that the
"quantities and distribution of fuel and oil (as shown) are acceptable for the intended flight."
Looking at my current "operations return" I have a selection of 16 administrative delay codes. There is not one for "fuelling" but there is one for "technical." The 16th is "other" for anything that in my opinion (I am not required to agree a reason with ground staff or anybody else unless I deem fit,) constitutes the reason or opinion for that delay. The point being that it is administrative, varies from company to company, and defines nothing in itself.
I presently have in front of me a copy of the aircrafts Technical log. On the page that I am required to certify prior to dispatch, there are a number of additional certificates that either may or must be completed prior to my certification. These certificates can be completed by other persons charged with the completion of that task. Part 3 of the Technical log is the fuelling certificate. This can be signed by the flight crew or a ground engineer. It states:
I hereby certify that the quantities and distribution of fuel and oil at completion of fuelling are as shown above.
Now in trying to persuade you with the "facts" that you seek, and in accepting that as an ex-flight engineer you will be au fait with the legality of the Technical log, that document contains nothing to do with administrative matters (delays, crew hours, etc.) It only contains technical requirements and the certificates needed to ensure compliance with those technical requirements. (certificate of release to service, de-icing certificate, fuelling certificate, captains certificate etc.)
Could you perhaps explain to me (as if I were simple) why the Technical log contains two certificates that relate to fuelling, if as you assert fuelling is not a technical issue?
As fascinating and relevant as you clearly find it, could you do so without suggesting that the trade body IATA is in some way supreme to the point in question?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And while you're at it, Safety Concerns, you can also acknowledge that I never said the flight crew were not responsible for fuelling. Au contraire. What I did say is that the Captain, although ultimately responsible, does not have time to fuel a large commercial aircraft himself.
Don't contort what others have said.
Don't contort what others have said.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Age: 74
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alas you are missing the point in your honourable rush to defend the Captain of this easyjet.
I have never tried to " defend " this Captain. How can I without the FACTS - have YOU got them ? and in this instance he might well be justifiably to blame, although of course I doubt it, what I am trying to defend is that actions by the TECHNICAL CREW with regard to fuelling the aircraft are a TECHNICAL matter, which you stubbornly refuse to accept.
and ......... incidentally, try to dispel the automatic assumption that any aviation incident is caused by Pilot Error before the FACTS are known - as an example in this thread by a previous poster stating " this pilot stuffed up " ( or words that effect ) Did they KNOW ?
Last edited by YorkshireTyke; 25th Jan 2011 at 18:53.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns, you have gone ever, ever so quiet. The silence is deafening.
Does it mean you now accept that the comprehensive rebuttals above from two professional pilots have put paid to your argument that 'over-fuelling is not a technical issue'?
Off to Luton tomorrow for an easyJet ride. Fingers crossed they don't over-fuel the plane.
Does it mean you now accept that the comprehensive rebuttals above from two professional pilots have put paid to your argument that 'over-fuelling is not a technical issue'?
Off to Luton tomorrow for an easyJet ride. Fingers crossed they don't over-fuel the plane.
