Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Air Canada Misloading Incidents

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Air Canada Misloading Incidents

Old 6th Jan 2022, 16:25
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,063
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 5 Posts
Air Canada Misloading Incidents

I am curious if anybody out there has their own procedures that they use to even partially monitor loading on their jet aircraft or is it the typical...hope for the best.

"Canadian investigators are probing the baggage-loading condition of a Boeing 737 Max 8 after an incident involving premature pitch-up during take-off. The Air Canada aircraft was departing Vancouver for Edmonton on 19 December. It was accelerating for take-off when the nose “rose unexpectedly”, according to Transportation Safety Board of Canada.“The [pilots were] able to hold it down and continued the take-off,” the authority adds. Flight AC234 then proceeded to Edmonton and landed safely. Subsequent inspection of the baggage hold found that 89 items of luggage had been placed in the aft hold, in contrast to the final loading documentation which showed them being in the forward hold.

“The company is conducting an investigation,” says the safety board. It identifies the airframe involved as C-GEKX which, according to Cirium data, had only been delivered to the airline a month beforehand. None of the 160 passengers and six crew members was injured."

"C-FTJV, an Air Canada Boeing 737 Max 8, was conducting flight ACA0557 from Los Angeles Intl.
(KLAX), CA to Vancouver Intl. (CYVR), BC. During take off rotation, flight crew felt that the nose of
the aircraft was slightly heavy. After take off, flight crew verified LDF (Load Final) Data for TOW
MAC (Take Off Weight Mean Aerodynamic Chord) accuracy. After verification, all cargo was
loaded in the forward cargo hold which resulted in a 5.8% forward difference in TOW MAC. Flight
continued to CYVR with no further incident."
punkalouver is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 20:30
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
When I was flying the MD11 I had a programable HP calculator that I taught to do weight and balance for the aircraft. It worked well enough to prevent a takeoff with a 10,000 pound error in takeoff weight on one occasion. However, it was dependent on the loaders info as to where things were loaded.
N1EPR is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 22:48
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 536
Received 51 Likes on 12 Posts
Not the first time it has happened.

737-300 G-POWC EDI - STN in November 2013, grossly misloaded because the ULD loading sequence wasn't checked, and they were reversed to have the heaviest at the front instead of at the rear, to balance the heavy cargo bay door at the front.

Synopsis.

The aircraft was loaded with the unit load devices (ULD) in the reverse order to that intended. This resulted in the aircraft CG being forward of the flight envelope limits. The crew encountered handling issues during takeoff but the aircraft landed safely at the destination. History of the flight The aircraft was on a cargo flight from Edinburgh Airport to Stanstead Airport. The cargo load consisted of eight unit load device (ULD) containers. The ULDs were loaded into the aircraft through a large cargo door located in the forward left fuselage. Due to the centre of gravity of the basic aircraft it was normal, when carrying mail freight, for the ULDs to be loaded with the heaviest at the rear of the aircraft, then in descending weight order towards the front of the aircraft with any empty ULDs loaded into the forward positions. The commander witnessed the ULDs arrive beside the aircraft and recalls noting that the number on the side of one of them was consistent with that on the load instruction form. The crew did not check the position of the ULDs after they were loaded in the aircraft....

Weight and balance

In the planned configuration for the aircraft load, the takeoff CG index would have been 38.8 units. The flight envelope forward limit at this takeoff weight was approximately 16 units. The actual index with the ULDs reverse loaded, was 3.8 units.

Recorded data

The FDR revealed that a pitch input was made between 133 and 137 KIAS and that the aircraft started to rotate at approximately 141 KIAS, then continued to rotate at a rate of approximately 1║/second to a pitch angle of 15║. The calculated VR was 128 KIAS and the normal rotation rate for this aircraft is between 2.5 and 3░/second
https://assets.publishing.service.go...POWC_04-14.pdf
pilotmike is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 23:21
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 1 Post
premature pitch-up + nose heavy?
Rodney Rotorslap is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2022, 01:51
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Up
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Incident: Canada B38M at Los Angeles on Jan 3rd 2022, load mismatch results in nose heavy departure

By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Jan 6th 2022 20:20Z, last updated Thursday, Jan 6th 2022 20:20Z

An Air Canada Boeing 737-8 MAX, registration C-FTJV performing flight AC-557 from Los Angeles,CA (USA) to Vancouver,BC (Canada) with 103 people on board, was departing from Los Angeles' runway 25R when the crew noticed during rotation for takeoff that the aircraft was slightly nose heavy. The aircraft climbed out, the crew subsequently verified the load sheet and found out, that all cargo had been loaded into the forward cargo hold, which showed the actual CG 5.8% (in relation to MAC) forward of the computed takeoff CG. The crew continued the flight to Vancouver without further incident.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/...130Z/KLAX/CYVR
Seat4A is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2022, 04:59
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,968
Received 11 Likes on 7 Posts
So 2 incidents. One a pitch up due loaded in the rear and one a nose heavy due loaded in the front…..
ACMS is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2022, 03:46
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: On a survey line somewhere...
Age: 41
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ACMS
So 2 incidents. One a pitch up due loaded in the rear and one a nose heavy due loaded in the frontů..
Averages out?
sgs233a is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.