LOADSHEETS ( UK Legislation)
Thread Starter
LOADSHEETS ( UK Legislation)
A question for UK Public Transport Operators. ANO 2000 Article 35 Para 4 says basically that the Loadsheet must be signed before flight by the person supervising the loading and the Commander. Clear enough? Indeed it seems it is in 99 cases out of 100. HOWEVER at a NE UK station of a well known handling agent it seems that it is not clear. They contend that the computer printed name is acceptable as the 'signature 'and are far from best pleased when asked to 'sign' in the generally accepted sense of the word. Other UK stations of the same agent do not do this .Can anyone throw light on this and whether other operators accept only the computer generated name?
[Ask your question, get your answer, and let the moderators moderate!]
[Ask your question, get your answer, and let the moderators moderate!]
Last edited by Checkboard; 13th May 2002 at 05:20.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed. The terms of the ANO are quite clear. It must be signed by both the person responsible for loading and the commander (unless they are one and the same).
Suggest you ask your CP, DFO or FSO to have a word with them. If they are not prepared to comply with the ANO, they should not be handling.
Suggest you ask your CP, DFO or FSO to have a word with them. If they are not prepared to comply with the ANO, they should not be handling.
Moderator
I've seen experienced captains, FOs, load controllers, regulatory specialists, etc .. all make dreadful mistakes with loading systems .. and I include myself there as well, even though I have been designing and using the things for 30 years or so.
In general, and presuming a good level of understanding and training, the guy who is walking the walk the most is more likely to have a better control of mistakes. However, the fact that no system is foolproof leads to the normal QA requirement that there is an audit of the first run of whatever is being done.
With a trimsheet, this works well with the load controller (by whatever title) preparing the document, and someone else, normally either captain or FO (depending on the local rules) running a second eye over the document.
The problem with the computer generated form is that, typically, the output is not amenable to an independent check ... meaning that we are, to some extent, trusting our necks to the computer ... and a computer is never wrong, is it ? How you get around this problem is, in itself, a problem.
Over the years, I have formed the opinion that the "best" way is for the load controller (because he/she is at the loading coalface) to run a trimsheet, and then the crew does a joint check with the captain checking the numbers while the FO runs a trim check using, ideally, a circular or similar, slide rule style of trim adjuster.
As to whether the document needs a physical signature will depend on
(a) the rules as published, and
(b) the airline's procedures, as accepted and approved by the regulator. It may well be that there exists a concession or dispensation against the ANO requirement.
In general, and presuming a good level of understanding and training, the guy who is walking the walk the most is more likely to have a better control of mistakes. However, the fact that no system is foolproof leads to the normal QA requirement that there is an audit of the first run of whatever is being done.
With a trimsheet, this works well with the load controller (by whatever title) preparing the document, and someone else, normally either captain or FO (depending on the local rules) running a second eye over the document.
The problem with the computer generated form is that, typically, the output is not amenable to an independent check ... meaning that we are, to some extent, trusting our necks to the computer ... and a computer is never wrong, is it ? How you get around this problem is, in itself, a problem.
Over the years, I have formed the opinion that the "best" way is for the load controller (because he/she is at the loading coalface) to run a trimsheet, and then the crew does a joint check with the captain checking the numbers while the FO runs a trim check using, ideally, a circular or similar, slide rule style of trim adjuster.
As to whether the document needs a physical signature will depend on
(a) the rules as published, and
(b) the airline's procedures, as accepted and approved by the regulator. It may well be that there exists a concession or dispensation against the ANO requirement.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: MiddleEast
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I aggree with HugMonster, the law is clear. Personally I ensure the load sheet is signed before I will accept it. If its not I simply hand it back until it is. Having had the local authorities pull a quick inspection just before start I am glad I do insist on things of this nature.
have a nice day
have a nice day
I'm a bit of an oddball, because I work in aircraft certification not operations. But W&CG is at-least as important for me as for you chaps, even if B-conditions rules are subtly different to AT rules.
W&CG reports are always signed, and in most cases double-checked (i.e. they are signed by the specialist who prepares them, then manually checked and signed by somebody else - usually the FTE).
Computer generated W&CG plots are the norm where I work, but our published procedures require the person checking and signing the plot to identify the most critical CG values and manually check them.
It's also (with my management hat on) probably the thing I most often have to tick people off about, that is incorrect completion of load sheets or inaccurate calcs on them. For that reason (and others) when I certify an aircraft type, I always ensure an adequate margin on CG at either end, to ensure that calculations would have to be grossly out before any dangerous handling regime was entered. I obviously can't do that with performance however - that's always going to be the captain's responsibility.
G
W&CG reports are always signed, and in most cases double-checked (i.e. they are signed by the specialist who prepares them, then manually checked and signed by somebody else - usually the FTE).
Computer generated W&CG plots are the norm where I work, but our published procedures require the person checking and signing the plot to identify the most critical CG values and manually check them.
It's also (with my management hat on) probably the thing I most often have to tick people off about, that is incorrect completion of load sheets or inaccurate calcs on them. For that reason (and others) when I certify an aircraft type, I always ensure an adequate margin on CG at either end, to ensure that calculations would have to be grossly out before any dangerous handling regime was entered. I obviously can't do that with performance however - that's always going to be the captain's responsibility.
G
Moderator
Mutt,
Every time the manufacturer nominates a useless datum for W&B calculations (ie most of the light aircraft POHs following the ICAO/GAMA guidance procedures), the datum and everything else gets reworked to improved trimsheet accuracy... this is the reason most of the large aircraft have a nice datum for the hangar guys and an even nicer (but quite different) trim datum for the trimsheet designer .... it does confuse the pilot sometimes which is why I adopt a bit of a hobby horse attitude to this sort of topic.
The other main consideration (an everytime thing) is to consider design assumptions and simplifications, as well as crew and pax etc. movement in flight. The usual way to address this is to do the sums and fudge the envelope limits to negate the effect of the errors. LMCs are in the same general category.
Every time the manufacturer nominates a useless datum for W&B calculations (ie most of the light aircraft POHs following the ICAO/GAMA guidance procedures), the datum and everything else gets reworked to improved trimsheet accuracy... this is the reason most of the large aircraft have a nice datum for the hangar guys and an even nicer (but quite different) trim datum for the trimsheet designer .... it does confuse the pilot sometimes which is why I adopt a bit of a hobby horse attitude to this sort of topic.
The other main consideration (an everytime thing) is to consider design assumptions and simplifications, as well as crew and pax etc. movement in flight. The usual way to address this is to do the sums and fudge the envelope limits to negate the effect of the errors. LMCs are in the same general category.
Last edited by john_tullamarine; 12th May 2002 at 14:05.
At least one UK operator has a 'dispensation' from the CAA for the computer-printed name to be counted as an acceptable signature. This is because (with that operator at least) the person preparing the loadsheet is not the despatcher but somebody at the other end of a computer link. I suggest complainants on this matter check first whether this dispensation applies. If it does, and the loadsheet is prepared remotely, coercing the despatcher into adding a manual signature doesn't do anything because (s)he didn't 'prepare' the loadsheet (although the despatcher and the commander are required to make a physical check that the load is as shown on the loadsheet).
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am most interested in this thred, as I work for a company that makes the software to produce the loadsheets!
With the general industry move to centralised load planning, this is going to be an increasing issue.
A company who I worked for centralised their operation, and initially the crews kept asking the dispatcher to sign the loadsheet, as they would not accept the electronic signature. After a while, they got used to it, so it did not remain a problem.
I would be interested to hear other opinions.
With the general industry move to centralised load planning, this is going to be an increasing issue.
A company who I worked for centralised their operation, and initially the crews kept asking the dispatcher to sign the loadsheet, as they would not accept the electronic signature. After a while, they got used to it, so it did not remain a problem.
I would be interested to hear other opinions.
We operate out of several stations inc. AMS where the loadsheet is not required to be signed by the dispatcher as they are not producing the loadsheet. The printed name on the loadsheet (I believe) is only put on it after the operator has entered their own code as is taken as being the same as a signature.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Max Angle,
that is certainly the way our system operates. Whoever is doing the planning and producing the loadsheet, their name appears as the Planner, having supplied a user name and password to enable them to use the system in the first place.
If planner A starts planning the flight, and planner B finishes it, then it is planner B who appears on the loadsheet.
that is certainly the way our system operates. Whoever is doing the planning and producing the loadsheet, their name appears as the Planner, having supplied a user name and password to enable them to use the system in the first place.
If planner A starts planning the flight, and planner B finishes it, then it is planner B who appears on the loadsheet.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hew J.
There is not a problem here.
The ANO does not say that the person who prepares the loadsheet has to sign it, but the person who supervises the loading. Most aircraft that I have flown, that can't be done remotely
, so I'll still have the dispatcher sign it. I don't care if whoever had the flying fingers on the keyboard is in Inverness and I am in Exeter - they supervise it, they can say if there's 20 lbs or 2 tonnes in the aft hold - if they were responsible for the loading of it, they sign it to say so.
There is not a problem here.
The ANO does not say that the person who prepares the loadsheet has to sign it, but the person who supervises the loading. Most aircraft that I have flown, that can't be done remotely
, so I'll still have the dispatcher sign it. I don't care if whoever had the flying fingers on the keyboard is in Inverness and I am in Exeter - they supervise it, they can say if there's 20 lbs or 2 tonnes in the aft hold - if they were responsible for the loading of it, they sign it to say so.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Intentionally Left Blank
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody.
because somebody signs a 'Provisional Loadsheet' instead same as with us (now that our Ground Ops people have re-intriduced it 'cos they finally understand what it's all about and why!).
because somebody signs a 'Provisional Loadsheet' instead same as with us (now that our Ground Ops people have re-intriduced it 'cos they finally understand what it's all about and why!).
Moderator
Mutt,
As reworking the manufacturer's supplied data is so very important in many cases ... perhaps you might follow up on your earlier post and we can really stir up a hornets' nest of a discussion for the interest of all ?
As reworking the manufacturer's supplied data is so very important in many cases ... perhaps you might follow up on your earlier post and we can really stir up a hornets' nest of a discussion for the interest of all ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
A 'Loadsheet' requires ownership by the allocated Load Controller or Dispatcher (So for a ACARS loadsheet, this is done by Login reference). If the Loadsheet has a computer printed name on it then it can be traced back to the originator. However, as a Load Controller myself and a frozen ATPL holder, I always ensure that a loadsheet has a printed name, and a signature....This way everyone is happy including the DETR!!!!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LTN uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hugmonster - full marks, im with you.
regardless of whether the load sheet is generated remotly by another person, or not, it is still the responsability of the loading supervisor and captain to ensure that the flight has been loaded correctly - as defined by the ANO. this is quite clear enough! thefore the ramp agent (or loading chief) should sign to state that they have loaded or witnessed the loading correctly as per operators instructions. this simply can't be done remotly.
point to note - generally it is the ramp agent who will pass final figures to his/her office for completion of the loadsheet. therore the person in the remote office will still rely on (his eyes and ears) the ramp agent to ensure correct details are obtained.
i will find it very hard to beleive that dispensations have been granted along theses lines in day to day operations.
regardless of whether the load sheet is generated remotly by another person, or not, it is still the responsability of the loading supervisor and captain to ensure that the flight has been loaded correctly - as defined by the ANO. this is quite clear enough! thefore the ramp agent (or loading chief) should sign to state that they have loaded or witnessed the loading correctly as per operators instructions. this simply can't be done remotly.
point to note - generally it is the ramp agent who will pass final figures to his/her office for completion of the loadsheet. therore the person in the remote office will still rely on (his eyes and ears) the ramp agent to ensure correct details are obtained.
i will find it very hard to beleive that dispensations have been granted along theses lines in day to day operations.