MK Airlines B747 crash at Halifax
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the cause of this accident turns out to be an aircraft overloading problem, I'd like to make the following 2 recommendations regarding air freight operations worldwide.
One, make it a serious crime (felony level) to purposely understate the weight of cargo to be shipped by air, given that the temptation to lower the freight charges by understating the weight is rather great.
Two, air freight operators should derive a special shipping rate for cargo that loses weight in transit, such as flowers that lose water to evaporation during transit. At least then the weight at takeoff can be more accurately reported.
(edited for typo)
One, make it a serious crime (felony level) to purposely understate the weight of cargo to be shipped by air, given that the temptation to lower the freight charges by understating the weight is rather great.
Two, air freight operators should derive a special shipping rate for cargo that loses weight in transit, such as flowers that lose water to evaporation during transit. At least then the weight at takeoff can be more accurately reported.
(edited for typo)
Last edited by Flight Safety; 27th Oct 2004 at 01:07.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: down south east
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another hull lost at MSE.
Philieus Fog,
Just to set you straight ," the nose wheel retraction at MSE with the cargo door open- another hull lost"
Again someone talking rubish, the aircraft had a GPS replaced. To do this on the first officers side one has to follow a simple procedure.
The engineer who had done this task had not placed the landing gear lever back in the extend position.
After the crew got on the hydraulics were switched on and the nose gear retracted.
The hull was not lost .The aircraft was towed to the crago shed at MSE and spent the next 7 weeks being repaired.
Douglas/Boeing were involved and drew a repair scheme.All above board under the scrutiny of the manafacturer.
Oh and by the way it was 9G-MKH.
Just to set the record straight .
Just to set you straight ," the nose wheel retraction at MSE with the cargo door open- another hull lost"
Again someone talking rubish, the aircraft had a GPS replaced. To do this on the first officers side one has to follow a simple procedure.
The engineer who had done this task had not placed the landing gear lever back in the extend position.
After the crew got on the hydraulics were switched on and the nose gear retracted.
The hull was not lost .The aircraft was towed to the crago shed at MSE and spent the next 7 weeks being repaired.
Douglas/Boeing were involved and drew a repair scheme.All above board under the scrutiny of the manafacturer.
Oh and by the way it was 9G-MKH.
Just to set the record straight .
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a better idea that would knock the fiddles right on the head:
All aircraft on all registers should be made to fit or activate the sensors that can present an actual auw readout on the flight deck.
I remember them being discussed or offered some fifteen to twenty years ago, but no company wanted them as the calculated weight is always better, commercially, than the real one!
We have all, at some time, juggled the figures to complete a flight, trusting perhaps too much on the scribbled numbers on a load chit thrust at us just before push back.
If all companies on all registers had them fitted, the oft mentioned playing field would still be level!
All aircraft on all registers should be made to fit or activate the sensors that can present an actual auw readout on the flight deck.
I remember them being discussed or offered some fifteen to twenty years ago, but no company wanted them as the calculated weight is always better, commercially, than the real one!
We have all, at some time, juggled the figures to complete a flight, trusting perhaps too much on the scribbled numbers on a load chit thrust at us just before push back.
If all companies on all registers had them fitted, the oft mentioned playing field would still be level!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Localiser backcourse 31
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When was the last time 'Standard weights' were updated despite input from the Health Authorities
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gone from the FL sun to the desert Oasis
Age: 60
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I can't stand this anymore. As someone who had loaded
this aircraft many, many, many times in its previous life,
I can not fathom how any body in their right mind would accept
a loaded aircraft and not verify the weight. I will tell you personally, there was not one kilo of cargo that went on that
aircraft when I was responsible that was not weighed properly, either at delivery to the warehouse or definitely upon final load out of the cargo pallets and ulds. Who on earth would guestimate the weight of a load of seafood? The handler who
processed that shipment is criminally negligent.
While it may be "common practice" in certain parts of the world to operate upon that assumption, sooner or later that turns out to be a deadly consequence.
this aircraft many, many, many times in its previous life,
I can not fathom how any body in their right mind would accept
a loaded aircraft and not verify the weight. I will tell you personally, there was not one kilo of cargo that went on that
aircraft when I was responsible that was not weighed properly, either at delivery to the warehouse or definitely upon final load out of the cargo pallets and ulds. Who on earth would guestimate the weight of a load of seafood? The handler who
processed that shipment is criminally negligent.
While it may be "common practice" in certain parts of the world to operate upon that assumption, sooner or later that turns out to be a deadly consequence.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very long time ago...
These sensors aren't anything like fifteen or twenty years old, Lou, more like thirty.
The 'ole B707F had 'em, and altho the STANS system had its detractors, if properly maintained and calibrated, it was quite accurate.
Of course, it requires cash to maintain, so it fell by the wayside in the headlong rush to the bottom line.
The 'ole B707F had 'em, and altho the STANS system had its detractors, if properly maintained and calibrated, it was quite accurate.
Of course, it requires cash to maintain, so it fell by the wayside in the headlong rush to the bottom line.
From some recent postings overweight seafood as a cause would almost appear to be hardening from conjecture into fact.
That's probably because there's nothing much else in the way of fact to discuss. It may be the easiest reason to pursue and may yet turn out to be cause. But focussing on this now is wrong because it rather gossiply assumes the loadmaster was totally derelict in his duties, either turning a blind eye to gross overloading at the last loading airport or winking at what he thought was normal slight underdeclaring.
Again, that may have been the case. But SleepingFreightDog's post is a good reminder of professionalism.
Say you start from a different assumption. First, that MK are a professional outfit and, despite all the references here to pushing their crews, they actually pay salaries and can attract competent people, inlcuding loadmasters.
Then, that loadmaster jobs, demanding as they may be, are not exactly abundant and, thus, still something people compete for.
If you accept that, you would also have to accept that the loadmaster on this aircraft was a professional and, in a competitive environment, concerned with doing a good job - and keeping it. It's not just his own job - and life - on the line, so one could also assume the rest of the crew he works and flies with is as concerned with how he plays his part as he is with how they do.
There are umpteen ways any person experienced with moving cargo about sees and feels discrepancies; it's a job that fine-hones suspicion and develops a keen sense of exactly where to look for fake info. He would be watching flts lifting the cargo, listening for the load on their hydraulic systems, hefting some boxes from the pallets himself, watching pallets roll and seeing how much effort it took shove them into position, checking as much as he could. Always suspicious. He would probably have loaded the same cargo on previous flights and, if he hadn't, would likely be twice as cautious.
I find it very difficult to conceive that any experienced loadmaster, in a competitive company, with a professional flight crew looking over his shoulder and checking his figures, knowing they were close to maxing out, could possibly have been other than very concerned at the accuracy of declared weights on the last cargo they were taking on board prior to a long flight out of a relatively tight runway. So don't shortchange the man.
That's probably because there's nothing much else in the way of fact to discuss. It may be the easiest reason to pursue and may yet turn out to be cause. But focussing on this now is wrong because it rather gossiply assumes the loadmaster was totally derelict in his duties, either turning a blind eye to gross overloading at the last loading airport or winking at what he thought was normal slight underdeclaring.
Again, that may have been the case. But SleepingFreightDog's post is a good reminder of professionalism.
Say you start from a different assumption. First, that MK are a professional outfit and, despite all the references here to pushing their crews, they actually pay salaries and can attract competent people, inlcuding loadmasters.
Then, that loadmaster jobs, demanding as they may be, are not exactly abundant and, thus, still something people compete for.
If you accept that, you would also have to accept that the loadmaster on this aircraft was a professional and, in a competitive environment, concerned with doing a good job - and keeping it. It's not just his own job - and life - on the line, so one could also assume the rest of the crew he works and flies with is as concerned with how he plays his part as he is with how they do.
There are umpteen ways any person experienced with moving cargo about sees and feels discrepancies; it's a job that fine-hones suspicion and develops a keen sense of exactly where to look for fake info. He would be watching flts lifting the cargo, listening for the load on their hydraulic systems, hefting some boxes from the pallets himself, watching pallets roll and seeing how much effort it took shove them into position, checking as much as he could. Always suspicious. He would probably have loaded the same cargo on previous flights and, if he hadn't, would likely be twice as cautious.
I find it very difficult to conceive that any experienced loadmaster, in a competitive company, with a professional flight crew looking over his shoulder and checking his figures, knowing they were close to maxing out, could possibly have been other than very concerned at the accuracy of declared weights on the last cargo they were taking on board prior to a long flight out of a relatively tight runway. So don't shortchange the man.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Beverly Hills 90210
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The on board computer, with a very simple software, could warn them of serious danger ahead as they are accelerating.
Use wheel velocity (or airspeed) to calculate acceleration. Add the EPR indication one can calculate mass. Further more you can calculate:
- velocity at runway length (assuming entered or from database)
- runway length used at 160 knots (or V1)
- abnormal acceleration
- etc.....
I wonder why they don't have this ??
Use wheel velocity (or airspeed) to calculate acceleration. Add the EPR indication one can calculate mass. Further more you can calculate:
- velocity at runway length (assuming entered or from database)
- runway length used at 160 knots (or V1)
- abnormal acceleration
- etc.....
I wonder why they don't have this ??
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNAM
Please don't misunderstand me, I understand your comments and what's more I AGREE ENTIRELY.
I'm not excusing the practice, the attitude and the fiddles.
In past lives I've taught Weight and Balance on large aircraft, including freighters.
When I started, I thought the difference between Net and Gross Performance was just 'money' in your back pocket (for money read 'safety').
What saddens me is that not only do Companies condone (by INaction) these practices, so do the Certifying Authorities who KNOW these practices go on and do nothing (or very little of substance) to stamp them out.
Sending an AIC around once a flood does NOT constitute DOING something.
HGV's are checked (in Europe anyway) from time to time by the authorities to check that they are not overweight. It's a damn shame that this practice cannot be done at Official instigation in the the Aviation Industry - both pax AND freight.
Lou's suggestion about an indicator in the Flight Deck of our ACTUAL weight would make us (and our human/freight cargo) much safer.
Using ACTUAL weights of pax and baggage would at a stroke make the charter industry safer BUT then the inevitable consequence would be a price rise.
Ergo we are back in a circular argument.
This has been a bone of contention to me for many years, that's why I sympathise with SNAM's comments.
The only way this COULD be resolved is if ALL crews went on strike until actual, verifiable weights were used ALL the time.
How many chances are there of THAT happening - back to FAT, SLIM and NONE.
So whilst I feel better for writing it, it makes no difference to those poor sods who were killed OR (perhaps more importantly since they were volunteers) their families.
It would be nice (but naive) to think that the result of THIS particular tragedy could be improvement and a resolve NOT to allow the kind of practices that predominate. (This based upon a prejudgement that the aircraft WAS overloaded).
I would ask anyone who wants to jump in and tell me I shouldn't pre-judge (and you are quite CORRECT). Ask yourself this question,
How many times have you accepted an aircraft that you KNEW was overweight, despite what the Loadsheet says?
The answer is of course your business not mine. Sadly it's a Business we share.
Edited phor spelin - agayn
I'm not excusing the practice, the attitude and the fiddles.
In past lives I've taught Weight and Balance on large aircraft, including freighters.
When I started, I thought the difference between Net and Gross Performance was just 'money' in your back pocket (for money read 'safety').
What saddens me is that not only do Companies condone (by INaction) these practices, so do the Certifying Authorities who KNOW these practices go on and do nothing (or very little of substance) to stamp them out.
Sending an AIC around once a flood does NOT constitute DOING something.
HGV's are checked (in Europe anyway) from time to time by the authorities to check that they are not overweight. It's a damn shame that this practice cannot be done at Official instigation in the the Aviation Industry - both pax AND freight.
Lou's suggestion about an indicator in the Flight Deck of our ACTUAL weight would make us (and our human/freight cargo) much safer.
Using ACTUAL weights of pax and baggage would at a stroke make the charter industry safer BUT then the inevitable consequence would be a price rise.
Ergo we are back in a circular argument.
This has been a bone of contention to me for many years, that's why I sympathise with SNAM's comments.
The only way this COULD be resolved is if ALL crews went on strike until actual, verifiable weights were used ALL the time.
How many chances are there of THAT happening - back to FAT, SLIM and NONE.
So whilst I feel better for writing it, it makes no difference to those poor sods who were killed OR (perhaps more importantly since they were volunteers) their families.
It would be nice (but naive) to think that the result of THIS particular tragedy could be improvement and a resolve NOT to allow the kind of practices that predominate. (This based upon a prejudgement that the aircraft WAS overloaded).
I would ask anyone who wants to jump in and tell me I shouldn't pre-judge (and you are quite CORRECT). Ask yourself this question,
How many times have you accepted an aircraft that you KNEW was overweight, despite what the Loadsheet says?
The answer is of course your business not mine. Sadly it's a Business we share.
Edited phor spelin - agayn
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to back Dengue_Dude's post, what's the nominal weight for hand baggage? In the old days hand baggage was exactly that but these days, being a regular traveller these pillocks, often referred to as passengers, are taking allsorts on board including clearly what is hold baggage, there ain't no way this baggage conforms anywhere near to the nominal weights but I've never been asked to have my hand baggage weighed.
Top Dog
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Close to FACT
Age: 55
Posts: 2,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W&B computers
Even the 747-400F, being a newish type of aircraft has a Weight & Balance computer. However, it's tolerance is around 2%, so at mtow of 397T there could be an over/under read of .... nearly 8T.
We asked Airbus to have a tolerance of 1% on the A380F. They said "no can do, problems, expensive, etc etc"...
We asked Airbus to have a tolerance of 1% on the A380F. They said "no can do, problems, expensive, etc etc"...
Just a numbered other
these pillocks, often referred to as passengers, are taking allsorts on board including clearly what is hold baggage, there ain't no way this baggage conforms anywhere near to the nominal weights but I've never been asked to have my hand baggage weighed.
Less stuff to check in and handle, and a lighter (on paper) aircraft in one easy (no pun) move.
Money saved all round.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't mean to start an international incident, I've never flown a Loco, oh I did fly KLM the other week, they're scrimping by no longer serving alcohol in economy so I'll consider them a Loco from now on.
In my post I was referring to the individuals who are knowingly putting an aircraft over it's anticipated weight and without declaring the excess.
Accepted, the check-in staff and boarders should be more dilligent but it is these passengers that seemingly don't care if the aircraft gets off the ground or not, saving a few dollars on excess baggage or clearing the destination airport, providing they make it that far, 10 minutes quicker seem to matter more than their own lives and that of the other passengers and crew.
In my post I was referring to the individuals who are knowingly putting an aircraft over it's anticipated weight and without declaring the excess.
Accepted, the check-in staff and boarders should be more dilligent but it is these passengers that seemingly don't care if the aircraft gets off the ground or not, saving a few dollars on excess baggage or clearing the destination airport, providing they make it that far, 10 minutes quicker seem to matter more than their own lives and that of the other passengers and crew.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bournemouth UK
Age: 49
Posts: 863
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you work out the number of aircraft verses number of airports would it be easier to install weighbridges at airports? Sure it would be expensive, and airports with multiple runways would need a few however there are advantages. You could have a large illuminated sign telling the pilots the weight and this could be recorded so that the authorities / ATC Tower have records in case of incidents. It would be much easier to control calibration of the airport weighbridges than it would to control the calibration of every aircraft in the world, and an un-calibrated weight and balance computer is more dangerous than no computer at all. Also I doubt built in weight and balance computers would ever be a no go item on the MEL so any unscrupulous operators are likely to ignore failures.
Of course, you can argue that it's a bit late finding out that your overweight when you arrive at the hold, however the costs and inconvenience caused to the operator would soon make people solve the problems that led to the overweight in the first place.
Just a thought.!
Of course, you can argue that it's a bit late finding out that your overweight when you arrive at the hold, however the costs and inconvenience caused to the operator would soon make people solve the problems that led to the overweight in the first place.
Just a thought.!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky Wave, The weigh bridge is a good idea though in practice under certain conditions it may give you false readings.
Imagine your at a particular airport that happens to have high winds. High enough that your actually getting some lift. Now the pilot gets concerned because he thinks he is at a certain weight and the weigh bridge says much less. It's back to the gate to redo everything all over again.
Imagine your at a particular airport that happens to have high winds. High enough that your actually getting some lift. Now the pilot gets concerned because he thinks he is at a certain weight and the weigh bridge says much less. It's back to the gate to redo everything all over again.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bournemouth UK
Age: 49
Posts: 863
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha Ha. The obvious flaw. That'll be why we weigh aircraft indoors then. Obviously the same must apply with an on board weight and balance system. The weight on wheels will be less in a strong wind
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would echo the comments of a previous poster that this may well prove to be a 'watershed' accident. Especially if it's found to be entirely down to overloading.
Re. weighbridges - nice idea, although practical problems as other posters have pointed out. But look - wherever money is changing hands on the basis of weight, there are weighbridges. Every two-bit lash-up quarry and scrapyard has a weighbridge, dammit. Spot-checks for truckers at roadside weighbridges. Our industry needs to 'get with the program', as Americans say - we're the most weight-critical industry around!
A pre-departure taxi-on weighbridge is a great sanity check idea, but optional, IMHO... the way to go is 100%, certified, weighing of *everything* as it is loaded to the holds, by law - whether freight, pax, or combi ops. That would be a fitting legacy for this accident - if, as I say, it turns out to be a gross overload.
You don't guess and hope the weight of a bunch of lobsters and ice, or take the word of someone who has a vested interest in telling porkies, or trust they haven't mixed-up lb and kg, or counted the containers wrongly - you *weigh* the bloody things, and you do it *right*. And so do all your competitors, because fiddling or telling porkies is fraud at best, endangering the safety of an aircraft at worst - and you go to jail.
Or am I a crazy idealist?
R1
Re. weighbridges - nice idea, although practical problems as other posters have pointed out. But look - wherever money is changing hands on the basis of weight, there are weighbridges. Every two-bit lash-up quarry and scrapyard has a weighbridge, dammit. Spot-checks for truckers at roadside weighbridges. Our industry needs to 'get with the program', as Americans say - we're the most weight-critical industry around!
A pre-departure taxi-on weighbridge is a great sanity check idea, but optional, IMHO... the way to go is 100%, certified, weighing of *everything* as it is loaded to the holds, by law - whether freight, pax, or combi ops. That would be a fitting legacy for this accident - if, as I say, it turns out to be a gross overload.
You don't guess and hope the weight of a bunch of lobsters and ice, or take the word of someone who has a vested interest in telling porkies, or trust they haven't mixed-up lb and kg, or counted the containers wrongly - you *weigh* the bloody things, and you do it *right*. And so do all your competitors, because fiddling or telling porkies is fraud at best, endangering the safety of an aircraft at worst - and you go to jail.
Or am I a crazy idealist?
R1