(a) Argosy ? .. twice the payload ? .. given that the beast had trouble enough making any sort of first segment at average weights ... it is, indeed, impressive that it managed not to get its belly wet on the example occasion ...

(b) Of course there needs to be checks and balances to keep the dishonest only moderately so ... that goes without saying.

(c) I have no problem with a weighbridge's being accurate .. there is plenty of room to straingauge the supports .. only the external conditions and their effect on the calibration is of concern ... as a regular user of both platform and loadcell aircraft weighing systems, the calibration transfer to the real world of weighing is a constant problem ... one which many of my colleagues seem not to concern themselves with to any great extent ... particularly with loadcell systems one can generate errors galore by being cavalier with the conduct of a weighing.

(d) prototype testing makes good sense ... what sort of numeric results have you had to date with model and full size prototype units ?

(e) those of us who are engineers are not daunted by change .. but see not much point of change for change's sake .. if, however, the mousetrap is a better product .. then we are all for it .. provided the cost/benefit numbers make sense as well.

(f) as for the PacMan brigade thing .. that is a whole new ballgame of problems and belief construct worries ...

Not twice the payload, John, just twice the declared cargo weight. Twice the payload would definitely have seen them out water ski-ing!

As to the Pac-man thing, there's much said about glass cockpits from those who don't really have a clue. The word "Luddite" springs to mind. Flying a glass cockpit aeroplane is a very, very long way from playing computer games. Even FS2004 - Century of Flight ;)

It wouldn't be too difficult to have an on-board weight & balance system that automatically checks for out of limit loading and provides a warning. Even prevents the engines being started, perhaps? :hmm:

If

(a) it works and the reliability is appropriate

(b) the cost/benefit is sound

I'm for it ...

As to the Argosy .. maybe I should read the tale more carefully .. haven't been in one of those for a LONG time.

Have you ever seen the booms do their thing from an in-trail position ? A wonder to behold.

The only aircraft I have come across where the first segment is more often than not the critical takeoff case ...

Re glass cockpits ... yes to all that .. but, in the absence of intelligent scepticism ... such toys can breed indifference and a total lack of back-of-a-fag-packet mental double checks .. ? A bit like pocket calculators .. while it goes well it's wonderful ... but, when it turns to custard, you are still back with the basics in the little boxes somewhere in the middle of the panel to get you home ...

Loading Errors Quotes
 

"I've spent the last 2 years in load control and have seen the following errors:

- wrong aircraft registration (so wrong dry operating weight/index)
- wrong pallet weight
- wrong pallet(s) brought out to aircraft
- pallets loaded in wrong position"

"I have witnessed many a time when we took off grossly overweight for various
mistakes. I recall an incident where the airline I worked for took off 10
tons over the MTOW (a loader had forgotten to empty the belly holds!) and
the crew failed to spot it. On a 147.4t SMTOW, this is a fairly large
percentage !"

"Having witnessed also the eagerness of exporters to declare lower weights,
with agents willing to "accommodate", it does surprise me we have not had
more accidents related to weight problems."

"It is not only different countries, it can also be different carriers within the same country using different standards

It is the standards of the operator of the aircraft that are used for weight and balance purposes. So even if a passenger is through checked on from one flight to another, there could well be different standard weights used. The system counts number of passengers (often split into Male, Female, Child and Infant) and multiplies by the standard weights for the loadsheet"

These are some of the unsolicited comments I have received on the topic of aircraft loading errors.

I have one more. Asian (Unnamed) carrier agent loaded all the cargo on one side of B744 without crew checking actual loading. Made for interesting conversation after takeoff. The result of investigation? Boeing, when queried by company, said flight was within safe limits. What aileron trim to set for take off? No reply. SOP change? Check your cargo before take off. Stops nasty surprises!

More comments, feedback, experiences please?

Chok Dee

Humorous Feedback
 

Why we don't weigh aircraft every time we take off.

Scene butchers shop (Remember them?).

Mrs Chaffcutter says. "I 'll have 5 kilo of lean rump plese." (Thats 11.23 Lbs )

Burcher Bill says. "Lets see. An average standard kilogram of rump is 900 grams, so........five kilos would be.........4,5 Kilos, right?"

"I guess." Says Mrs Chaffcutter. "But why dont you just use scales and weight the meat?"

You can't trust them scales Mrs C. The government doesn't, they give us average (Standard) weight tables to use instead."

"OIC" says the trusting Mrs Chaffcutter.

Wonder where the cg ended up in the following example.

Post lifted off the thread on "What ballast are you carrying around"

UNWANTED BALLAST

Back in my youth when I was just a boy pilot, we flew enormous quantities of freight into the New Guinea Highlands on DC3s, there was no other way, no roads, so everything went by air.

One particular DC3, known as being 'gutless', had, over the years carried literally thousands of tons of cement into the highlands. Slowly, oh so slowly, the cement dust was sifting down through the floor cracks and settling on the keel, and in the tropical humidity became hard.

At the next major overhaul, 2000 Lb of hardened cement was removed from the keel. After that, the aircraft performed just as well as any other.