Jetstar A321 YMML Incident
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstar A321 YMML Incident
Some serious questions to be asked.
Full aft is concerning.
Full aft is concerning.
On 29 October 2015, an Airbus A321, registered VH-VWT and operated by Jetstar Airways (Jetstar), was scheduled to conduct a passenger flight from Melbourne, Victoria, to Perth, Western Australia. During the take-off roll, the pilot flying noticed that the aircraft was nose-heavy and required an almost full aft control input to raise the aircraft’s nose. Once airborne, the flight crew requested the cabin crew to confirm the passenger numbers and seating locations. The flight crew re-entered the updated information into the flight management computer and identified that the aircraft was outside the aircraft’s loading limits for take-off and landing. Passengers were relocated within the aircraft cabin to return the aircraft to within allowable limits for the remainder of the flight and landing.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This case seems too excessive. There would be errors for balance calculations, but not like this. Surprised to know that.
Is Jetstar using some apps(iPad? Laptops?) for weight and balance?
Does the pilots do it by themselves?
At least, lucky for them to made takeoff...
Is Jetstar using some apps(iPad? Laptops?) for weight and balance?
Does the pilots do it by themselves?
At least, lucky for them to made takeoff...
Only half a speed-brake
The manufacturer of the aircraft I fly states, that if the CG is within limits for TKOF and trim set also within the limits for takeoff, the A/C is always flyable. Irrespective of the actual position, ie. full FW CG and full aft trim. Is this a feature implemented by virtue or an airworthiness requirement?
Thanks, FD.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have several times been a PAX on flights where the front rows of the cabin were 'not to be occupied' so as keep the CofG within limits.
Obviously it was not a fully-occupied aircraft (and there was demand on boarding for those unoccupied seats).
Obviously it was not a fully-occupied aircraft (and there was demand on boarding for those unoccupied seats).