MK Airlines B747 crash at Halifax
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747FOCAL
Do you think that if you tell a lie 100 times, that it becomes true ?
I work for Cargolux airlines, and that should prove to you that I know what I´m talking about.
If you were realy there like you say, you should be able to tell every one when this foto was taken.
It looks to me that it was taken after the A/C arraived to the Cargolux hangar.
747FOCAL
Do you think that if you tell a lie 100 times, that it becomes true ?
I work for Cargolux airlines, and that should prove to you that I know what I´m talking about.
If you were realy there like you say, you should be able to tell every one when this foto was taken.
It looks to me that it was taken after the A/C arraived to the Cargolux hangar.
747FOCAL
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Balmullo,Scotland
Posts: 933
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ghanian CAA inspectors are taught at AST in Perth(I have actually dealt with a few of them) and though I am no expert on Ghananian Civil aircraft regulations I am not in any doubt that their rules and regs are based on BCARs/JAA/EASA regs.
Top Dog
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Close to FACT
Age: 55
Posts: 2,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never mind what the airway bill states, each pallet is weighed prior loading. Also consider that on a given flight, there are often hundreds of awbs from hundreds of individual agents/shippers.
MZFW on this aircraft was 267619KG, standard for a 200 with no extended zfw.
MZFW on this aircraft was 267619KG, standard for a 200 with no extended zfw.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A load is 'said' to be weighed before loading, sometimes at the airport, sometimes at the shipper's but in reality this is not always the case.
Whilst SNAM's view is understandable he probably wouldn't last for very long in the employ of many a cargo airline. Often the loading is done when the flight crew are still tucked-up in bed thus it is down to the loadmaster and if one name should 'stick out' for repeatedly delaying services, upsetting handling agents or peeing-off customers, well heads will roll.
Agreed this should not be the case but take for instance a departure from Nairobi, due to temperatures you only have a few hours each day whereas you'll get the aircraft off the ground and that's the same time as all the other cargo boys are going. You demand an offload & reweigh then you go right to the back of the queue, miss the window thus a 24hr delay.
Your load is fresh flowers, straight out of refrigeration, how are you going to explain 100T of dead flowers to your boss and the customer!
Some airline(s) have a reputation for operating overweight, on a DC8-55 it might have been 5T over, on a B747 perhaps 10T over. But, if there are 2 customers, each with a part load, and both believe they are the only one to add the extra tonnage then the situation may arise whereas an aircraft is 20T over.
Whilst SNAM's view is understandable he probably wouldn't last for very long in the employ of many a cargo airline. Often the loading is done when the flight crew are still tucked-up in bed thus it is down to the loadmaster and if one name should 'stick out' for repeatedly delaying services, upsetting handling agents or peeing-off customers, well heads will roll.
Agreed this should not be the case but take for instance a departure from Nairobi, due to temperatures you only have a few hours each day whereas you'll get the aircraft off the ground and that's the same time as all the other cargo boys are going. You demand an offload & reweigh then you go right to the back of the queue, miss the window thus a 24hr delay.
Your load is fresh flowers, straight out of refrigeration, how are you going to explain 100T of dead flowers to your boss and the customer!
Some airline(s) have a reputation for operating overweight, on a DC8-55 it might have been 5T over, on a B747 perhaps 10T over. But, if there are 2 customers, each with a part load, and both believe they are the only one to add the extra tonnage then the situation may arise whereas an aircraft is 20T over.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNAM,
I have never said I have, nor will, overloaded an aircraft. I've merely explained what happens in the 'real' world rather than the 'text book' world.
I do not agree with such practices and for such a reason I would never apply to certain airline(s).
From your text it would appear you have become angry towards me, why? All I've done is tell the truth, I've never previously said I agree or disagree with it and I would never knowingly endanger the safety of an aircraft nor it's crew.
I have never said I have, nor will, overloaded an aircraft. I've merely explained what happens in the 'real' world rather than the 'text book' world.
I do not agree with such practices and for such a reason I would never apply to certain airline(s).
From your text it would appear you have become angry towards me, why? All I've done is tell the truth, I've never previously said I agree or disagree with it and I would never knowingly endanger the safety of an aircraft nor it's crew.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dubai U.A.E.
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not saying that it happened in this case as we shall only really know once the full investigation is complete but I know for a fact that a certain freight forwarder out of NBO whose speciality was shipping fresh produce knew that due to the dry atmosphere on the aircraft in cruise the freight would loose between 5-10% of its weight through dehydration. They would therefore overload the aircraft to a corresponding figure. The first that the crew would know about it would be a close up view of the rapidly approaching red lights at the end of the runway with the aircraft still firmly on the ground.
Obviously climb performance was degraded and fuel burn increased accordingly. However once the aircraft arrived at destination and the crew complained enough to have the cargo check weighed it would of course be down to the contracted figure. And so the process would continue.
Obviously climb performance was degraded and fuel burn increased accordingly. However once the aircraft arrived at destination and the crew complained enough to have the cargo check weighed it would of course be down to the contracted figure. And so the process would continue.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In the oil wealth of sand dunes
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone seen the "signed" copy of the weight & balance which the Captain signed. The Captain would then have taken a copy for himself and a few copies would be left behind.
My point is, there are a few other copies of the cargo documents and weight and balance somewhere, which were left behind which would have a lot of info on it to start with.
These forms and cargo manifests would have signitures on them saying as to who prepared and loaded the pallets, and of course weighed them.
This of course would be a starting point. Considering the given weight, performance would be calculated, which the crew would've done.
From here on there may have been a big difference between what was believed and signed for, versus actual.
My point is, there are a few other copies of the cargo documents and weight and balance somewhere, which were left behind which would have a lot of info on it to start with.
These forms and cargo manifests would have signitures on them saying as to who prepared and loaded the pallets, and of course weighed them.
This of course would be a starting point. Considering the given weight, performance would be calculated, which the crew would've done.
From here on there may have been a big difference between what was believed and signed for, versus actual.
For argument's sake, lets postulate that the seafood was 75T instead of 53T yielding an overload of 22T.
The required speeds would be:
root (370 / 348) ~= 3% over those for MTOW. From Breel's numbers, I obtain:
Flap 20 -- Vr 166 V2 176
Flap 10 -- Vr 172 V2 184
Remember also that MTOWs for a given set of conditions assume an engine loss at V1 whereas here we had all engines "operating normally" instead of the nominal 75% power after V1.
Taking the reports attributed to TSB's Fowler of 130 kt achieved (don't know at what point) instead of the desired 160 kt (in conflict with Breel's and my numbers) and postulating a linear effect on the speed achieved (until hearing from the better qualified), the full thrust overload factor would have to be something like 25% which would produce an 87T overload and a TOW of 435T -- with that kind of overload (which I do not believe), I would think that one or more tires would fail during taxi or takeoff.
Reports seem to confirm that close to the full runway was used; so we seem to be left with: the parking brake left on, or a reduced thrust setting (reports of a suddenly increased thrust when well down the runway support this), or a combination of these factors, which then brings crew fatigue into the question.
The required speeds would be:
root (370 / 348) ~= 3% over those for MTOW. From Breel's numbers, I obtain:
Flap 20 -- Vr 166 V2 176
Flap 10 -- Vr 172 V2 184
Remember also that MTOWs for a given set of conditions assume an engine loss at V1 whereas here we had all engines "operating normally" instead of the nominal 75% power after V1.
Taking the reports attributed to TSB's Fowler of 130 kt achieved (don't know at what point) instead of the desired 160 kt (in conflict with Breel's and my numbers) and postulating a linear effect on the speed achieved (until hearing from the better qualified), the full thrust overload factor would have to be something like 25% which would produce an 87T overload and a TOW of 435T -- with that kind of overload (which I do not believe), I would think that one or more tires would fail during taxi or takeoff.
Reports seem to confirm that close to the full runway was used; so we seem to be left with: the parking brake left on, or a reduced thrust setting (reports of a suddenly increased thrust when well down the runway support this), or a combination of these factors, which then brings crew fatigue into the question.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK & points middle east
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNAM!
I remember vividly my second (first successful), post-military, interview with Air Gone Wrong (AHK), when asked by Cpt Blackwell whether I considered Cargo second rate. My answer was, "I feel no differently carrying pax or cargo, my responsibility is "MY ARSE" first"! I got the job!
Operating the B742 for 8 years now, my answer is still the same. Whether you have 472+ Hadji's on board or 103.8 tonnes of "chips" out of Penang.... the answer remains.
Fighter/Recce "Pukes" used to sneer at the "trash-haulers", austensibly because they weren't good enough to fly the "fast-stuff". B.S.! I've flown both "Queens-of-the-sky", the Phantom and the Jumbo..... no difference to the professional, except the Phantom could do mach 2! Responsibility is the same.
(edited for the Queen's English)
I remember vividly my second (first successful), post-military, interview with Air Gone Wrong (AHK), when asked by Cpt Blackwell whether I considered Cargo second rate. My answer was, "I feel no differently carrying pax or cargo, my responsibility is "MY ARSE" first"! I got the job!
Operating the B742 for 8 years now, my answer is still the same. Whether you have 472+ Hadji's on board or 103.8 tonnes of "chips" out of Penang.... the answer remains.
Fighter/Recce "Pukes" used to sneer at the "trash-haulers", austensibly because they weren't good enough to fly the "fast-stuff". B.S.! I've flown both "Queens-of-the-sky", the Phantom and the Jumbo..... no difference to the professional, except the Phantom could do mach 2! Responsibility is the same.
(edited for the Queen's English)
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thrust Increase
Just a point about the thrust increase heard during the TO run - this is not an indication that reduced thrust had been set at the start.
The engines are never run at the rating which can be obtained by - as Boeing put it - Firewalling the throttles, even when Full thrust is used.
Firewalling gets every last ounce of thrust out of the engines and may well cause irreparable damage to them. It is a last ditch method in dire trouble - as this case appears to have been.
The engines are never run at the rating which can be obtained by - as Boeing put it - Firewalling the throttles, even when Full thrust is used.
Firewalling gets every last ounce of thrust out of the engines and may well cause irreparable damage to them. It is a last ditch method in dire trouble - as this case appears to have been.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slot,
The picture was taken roughly same time last year. I have one of it taking off, but you can't see the missing fairing.
Really makes no difference as it was not the reason for the crash.
The picture was taken roughly same time last year. I have one of it taking off, but you can't see the missing fairing.
Really makes no difference as it was not the reason for the crash.
Last edited by 747FOCAL; 25th Oct 2004 at 20:16.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for the comments on my previous post. All I did is vocalise what many of you already know.
To me this is a watershed accident. It will be the study of safety lectures for years to come. However I feel the thread is focusing on the symptoms and not the cause.
As I watch the development of the thread, there is a tendency amongst some to defend MK. I do however feel that we should draw a distinction between the crews and those who manage at a higher level. I know many of MK’s present and previous pilots. Indeed they are a very practical bunch who know the basics and in a tight spot quickly revert to a simple solution that draws heavily on a previously learnt, solid aviation background. That, combined with common sense, makes them very versatile. Some of these skills are a direct result of survival in Zimbabwe and Rhodesia.
Indeed sometimes I wish these qualities could be displayed when I watch simulator sessions go wrong purely because of lack of background in the airline trained and groomed pilots who know no other way apart from the highly proceduralised channels they have followed. Their minds are often so full of fine-print that the greater objective is blurred. These are the products of both a welfare state and a purely specialist training. This is a topic, all on its own, which I leave to the CRM gurus of the industry who are still searching for the perfect tools. I wish them well – it is very complicated.
However, I can also say with authority that these same MK pilots enter a different world when they leave MK for a more professional outfit. Almost to a man, they admit that they didn’t know what they didn’t know. The complexities of the industry, the true professionalism of an outfit that acknowledges that the pilots are only the final defence against disaster, are often a cold shower of reality. The learning curve is steep. Ultimately they settle down to be very well rounded professionals.
And yes they do often come from disciplined backgrounds like the airforce, but let us not forget that 2 of MK’s hull loses were commanded by the same airforce pilot. Again there is more to modern commercial aviation than a very capable pair of hands and discipline.
I too understand the pressure. I openly admit that I have blatantly broken the rules at the behest of a country’s dictator. Either that or I lost my job - perhaps worse. I managed my personal risks but then I was younger and also did not know what I did not know. A responsible hierarchy would never have placed me there. When the authorities don’t understand the risks, the outcome is variable. And eventually tragic.
For management there is a balance. They are responsible for watching for the warning signs and taking them seriously. They are responsible for putting up the sensors that detect these signs. They are responsible for putting in place a system that catches most errors before the crews are forced to initiate a recovery. I hope all managements, however good, take this accident as a poignant refresher.
So too must the management turn a profit. After all that keeps us all in a job. We all work hard to get the job done. However modern cargo ops are not the desperate plight of the Berlin Airlift. It’s all about money. I personally cannot condone an operation, however dynamic, that might well result in incinerated houses, mass funerals and children with their faces burnt off. You get the picture.
I admire the entrepreneur. To carve a niche is this business is no small feat. But best he know his business. Every aspect of it – including safety.
To me this is a watershed accident. It will be the study of safety lectures for years to come. However I feel the thread is focusing on the symptoms and not the cause.
As I watch the development of the thread, there is a tendency amongst some to defend MK. I do however feel that we should draw a distinction between the crews and those who manage at a higher level. I know many of MK’s present and previous pilots. Indeed they are a very practical bunch who know the basics and in a tight spot quickly revert to a simple solution that draws heavily on a previously learnt, solid aviation background. That, combined with common sense, makes them very versatile. Some of these skills are a direct result of survival in Zimbabwe and Rhodesia.
Indeed sometimes I wish these qualities could be displayed when I watch simulator sessions go wrong purely because of lack of background in the airline trained and groomed pilots who know no other way apart from the highly proceduralised channels they have followed. Their minds are often so full of fine-print that the greater objective is blurred. These are the products of both a welfare state and a purely specialist training. This is a topic, all on its own, which I leave to the CRM gurus of the industry who are still searching for the perfect tools. I wish them well – it is very complicated.
However, I can also say with authority that these same MK pilots enter a different world when they leave MK for a more professional outfit. Almost to a man, they admit that they didn’t know what they didn’t know. The complexities of the industry, the true professionalism of an outfit that acknowledges that the pilots are only the final defence against disaster, are often a cold shower of reality. The learning curve is steep. Ultimately they settle down to be very well rounded professionals.
And yes they do often come from disciplined backgrounds like the airforce, but let us not forget that 2 of MK’s hull loses were commanded by the same airforce pilot. Again there is more to modern commercial aviation than a very capable pair of hands and discipline.
I too understand the pressure. I openly admit that I have blatantly broken the rules at the behest of a country’s dictator. Either that or I lost my job - perhaps worse. I managed my personal risks but then I was younger and also did not know what I did not know. A responsible hierarchy would never have placed me there. When the authorities don’t understand the risks, the outcome is variable. And eventually tragic.
For management there is a balance. They are responsible for watching for the warning signs and taking them seriously. They are responsible for putting up the sensors that detect these signs. They are responsible for putting in place a system that catches most errors before the crews are forced to initiate a recovery. I hope all managements, however good, take this accident as a poignant refresher.
So too must the management turn a profit. After all that keeps us all in a job. We all work hard to get the job done. However modern cargo ops are not the desperate plight of the Berlin Airlift. It’s all about money. I personally cannot condone an operation, however dynamic, that might well result in incinerated houses, mass funerals and children with their faces burnt off. You get the picture.
I admire the entrepreneur. To carve a niche is this business is no small feat. But best he know his business. Every aspect of it – including safety.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disconnected,
Very well put, there have been previous posts here about 'professional' crew members and would they do such a particular thing or allow it to happen, a crew member can only be as professional as the company, the rest of the team, he works with and/or for.
Having previously worked in cargo ops myself for 5 years operating geriatric jets on a tight budget I know such a scenario
only too well. I'm well aware of the reputation MK have and some of their operating practices.
Carelessness and/or lack of paying attention to detail seems to come as second nature, several hull losses have been well publicised but not all, what about the DC8 nosewheel retraction whilst on stand at Manston and whilst the cargo door was open, another hull lost.
The ACMI rates MK were charging when I was in cargo, well they were either operating at a loss or they were cutting corners, bearing in mind that these years later they are still in business it would appear they weren't operating at a loss!
Very well put, there have been previous posts here about 'professional' crew members and would they do such a particular thing or allow it to happen, a crew member can only be as professional as the company, the rest of the team, he works with and/or for.
Having previously worked in cargo ops myself for 5 years operating geriatric jets on a tight budget I know such a scenario
only too well. I'm well aware of the reputation MK have and some of their operating practices.
Carelessness and/or lack of paying attention to detail seems to come as second nature, several hull losses have been well publicised but not all, what about the DC8 nosewheel retraction whilst on stand at Manston and whilst the cargo door was open, another hull lost.
The ACMI rates MK were charging when I was in cargo, well they were either operating at a loss or they were cutting corners, bearing in mind that these years later they are still in business it would appear they weren't operating at a loss!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: EUROPE
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post from Disconnected. P.Fogg also makes an interesting point. Economic principles about competition (in any industry) basically state that any business that cannot survive within the legal framework of the industry will go out of business. What MK has achieved over the years has been a result of twisting this principle of remaining within the legal framework, and as a result people have died. How much is a man's life worth?
"Kruger denied that his airline had ever compromised safety" (article form Sunday Times)
This sounds like the comment of a desperate man trying to wash the blood off his hands! The rot starts at the top. Kruger has from the very beginning compromised safety to "deliver the freight", everyone at MK knows that. That safety culture, or lack thereof, is still as prevelent today despite the three previous crashes and the revised operating procedures.
And whilst there have been posts on how the MK crew are being "exploited" by MK management, they are not without blame. Perhaps through denial, ignorance or naivety, or combination of such, (none of which are acceptable excuses) they have and CONTINUE to bend the rules. If Mike Kruger is holding a gun to the crews' heads, THEY THEMSELVES are the ones pulling the trigger in a "game" of Russian roulette by accepting to fly under these conditions!! It's a powerful gun, and innocent people are in the crossfire.
How much is a man's life worth? A lousy US$50 HOTAC ... sound familiar?!
"Kruger denied that his airline had ever compromised safety" (article form Sunday Times)
This sounds like the comment of a desperate man trying to wash the blood off his hands! The rot starts at the top. Kruger has from the very beginning compromised safety to "deliver the freight", everyone at MK knows that. That safety culture, or lack thereof, is still as prevelent today despite the three previous crashes and the revised operating procedures.
And whilst there have been posts on how the MK crew are being "exploited" by MK management, they are not without blame. Perhaps through denial, ignorance or naivety, or combination of such, (none of which are acceptable excuses) they have and CONTINUE to bend the rules. If Mike Kruger is holding a gun to the crews' heads, THEY THEMSELVES are the ones pulling the trigger in a "game" of Russian roulette by accepting to fly under these conditions!! It's a powerful gun, and innocent people are in the crossfire.
How much is a man's life worth? A lousy US$50 HOTAC ... sound familiar?!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'Swiss Cheese Model' has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread with regard to the MK’s previous accidents and it seems to me that this model is being put up almost as an excuse, in defense of, or a reason for the accidents. Whereas, in reality, the Swiss Cheese Model merely tries to explain, metaphorically, a chain of events leading to an accident. The trick, if you like, is to break the chain, or close just one hole.
The fact that MK operate into some less than desirable airports would make the adherence to laid down procedures that much more imperative (because some of the holes are already lined up before they get there!). I mentioned a few airlines in a previous post that have a good track record, they religiously stick to procedures no matter where the airport. Maybe not as flexible as MK, but safer and more expensive. It is the extra expense that is the problem for these types of operators.
The fact that MK operate into some less than desirable airports would make the adherence to laid down procedures that much more imperative (because some of the holes are already lined up before they get there!). I mentioned a few airlines in a previous post that have a good track record, they religiously stick to procedures no matter where the airport. Maybe not as flexible as MK, but safer and more expensive. It is the extra expense that is the problem for these types of operators.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
("If you think safety is expensive, try paying for an accident!")
It's not a problem for some people.
MK's DC8-50's were becoming out of date, of the hull losses did MK re-invest the insurance payouts into replacement DC8-50's?
No, it was re-invested into DC8-60's and B747's, what a way to upgrade one's fleet!
It's not a problem for some people.
MK's DC8-50's were becoming out of date, of the hull losses did MK re-invest the insurance payouts into replacement DC8-50's?
No, it was re-invested into DC8-60's and B747's, what a way to upgrade one's fleet!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNAM
I stopped reading when I got to your comments about being angry when commercial considerations outweigh (no pun intended) safety.
Every airline I've been in/near state 'safety is our top priority'.
Would anyone go near them if they didn't say that?
Now guess how many fingers I would need to hold up to indicate how many airlines actually MEANT that.
I could indicate it easily even if I was Captain Hook.
The brutal reality is that aviation is cut throat and safety like everything else is negotiable.
I've flown with pilots that could barely get through the flightdeck door - they must have weighed 220 lb plus, then they have a nav bag. But we all weigh the same (wonder why we do a medical then huh?).
The assumption is that all the crew weigh the same - of course we do, that's why the health authorities are SO worried about obesity.
Our passengers too - especially in charter airlines have a set weight. If they fly BA they weigh 'x' lb/kg, if they fly on bucket holiday they weigh 'y' - the very same people. Yet load/trim sheets are calculated to the lb/kg.
When was the last time 'Standard weights' were updated despite input from the Health Authorities. A fatal commuter crash in the states was put down directly to being overweight recently - but what has been done?
It's complete rubbish. Standard weights are used for luggage and often exceeded as is cabin walk-on baggage.
Why? Because if actual weights were used, passengers might have to be offloaded, commercially unacceptable.
I asked for an aircraft to be check-weighed (pax load and baggage) on arrival from Spain once, due to a mix up with actual and standard weights which were tonnes different. I had three chances of that - fat, slim and none. It'll never happen. Company's don't WANT to know the answer. It never happened.
Flight Safety costs money, commercialism is what pays the bills.
Sad fact of life - and most of us that actually fly agree with your position, but the system doesn't back us up.
This perhaps explains why we have gross and net take off performance standards.
Whenever an aircraft takes off at performance limited weight (mass) you can bet in reality it is OVERWEIGHT.
The CEO will however still trot out 'Safety is our Prime Concern'.
Regards.
Every airline I've been in/near state 'safety is our top priority'.
Would anyone go near them if they didn't say that?
Now guess how many fingers I would need to hold up to indicate how many airlines actually MEANT that.
I could indicate it easily even if I was Captain Hook.
The brutal reality is that aviation is cut throat and safety like everything else is negotiable.
I've flown with pilots that could barely get through the flightdeck door - they must have weighed 220 lb plus, then they have a nav bag. But we all weigh the same (wonder why we do a medical then huh?).
The assumption is that all the crew weigh the same - of course we do, that's why the health authorities are SO worried about obesity.
Our passengers too - especially in charter airlines have a set weight. If they fly BA they weigh 'x' lb/kg, if they fly on bucket holiday they weigh 'y' - the very same people. Yet load/trim sheets are calculated to the lb/kg.
When was the last time 'Standard weights' were updated despite input from the Health Authorities. A fatal commuter crash in the states was put down directly to being overweight recently - but what has been done?
It's complete rubbish. Standard weights are used for luggage and often exceeded as is cabin walk-on baggage.
Why? Because if actual weights were used, passengers might have to be offloaded, commercially unacceptable.
I asked for an aircraft to be check-weighed (pax load and baggage) on arrival from Spain once, due to a mix up with actual and standard weights which were tonnes different. I had three chances of that - fat, slim and none. It'll never happen. Company's don't WANT to know the answer. It never happened.
Flight Safety costs money, commercialism is what pays the bills.
Sad fact of life - and most of us that actually fly agree with your position, but the system doesn't back us up.
This perhaps explains why we have gross and net take off performance standards.
Whenever an aircraft takes off at performance limited weight (mass) you can bet in reality it is OVERWEIGHT.
The CEO will however still trot out 'Safety is our Prime Concern'.
Regards.
Re comment about insurance payments being used to upgrade the fleet!!?
I would have thought that there may be significant difficulty for the operator to insure the aircraft if some of the allegations in this thread are either true or can be demonstrated to be.
I guess if insurance is possible for them, the premiums will increase and their margins become ever more difficult to attain, putting further pressure on the operation to control cost.
A vicious circle?
I would have thought that there may be significant difficulty for the operator to insure the aircraft if some of the allegations in this thread are either true or can be demonstrated to be.
I guess if insurance is possible for them, the premiums will increase and their margins become ever more difficult to attain, putting further pressure on the operation to control cost.
A vicious circle?