Really, has that not been automated?... Do you have any links for that?

Spreadsheet. I suppose that is automation, but it is still a just list of every seat location, including crew - inches aft of the zero point - and the weight of a standard PAX. Pax checked baggage and a standard guess on PAX carry on baggage. Load Master has to enter the cargo and the fuel. He also has to be sure the airplane empty weight and arm are correct, this varies by S/N. After all every time they reconfigure the cabin or change onboard equipment that will change. They actually put each landing gear on a scale and weigh it and enter the result in the logbook when it leaves the shop after mods.

This year UPS introduced a new container. Or put it this way, there are several "standard sizes." Weight however is upon the density of what is packed inside the container. Lead bricks or areogel bricks.

There there is the counter to counter freight. You can expect everything from a box of documents, to human remains, to strange shaped equipment, to the occasional longboard surfboard, or even aircraft parts like a jet engine. Cargo straps and nets and those have to be calculated too.

The calculation is simple. Weight times inches aft for everything onboard. Total it all up including the empty plane. Is it inside the numbers in the POH? Yes it flies. No move stuff around. Once happy print the list so the loaders hopefully put it all where they are supposed to.

But of course all the above pre-supposes that the intended aircraft and the late replacement aircraft are of the same type.

As I said earlier the intended aircraft was an Airbus A320, but the replacement was an Airbus A321. The latter is longer. The planning load master did his job many hours ahead of the actual departure and used the correct sheet for the intended type. Some time later the intended aircraft failed and had to be substituted (apparently very close to departure time). The load master appears to have assumed that the replacement aircraft would be of the same type as the intended one so didn't re-run the loading calculations with the correct type, but he didn't.
The cargo throwers load the aircraft to the plan, using the bays as-per the (incorrect) plan, and thus the cargo is too far forward for the actual aircraft.
The airline concerned (like many European low-cost airline) is a free-seating one and have found that most passengers prefer to be at the front of the cabin so they can get off faster on arrival, so they all sit as far forward as they can, thus a fair number of empty rows at the back - this is far more common with light loads than full passenger numbers. Even if the airline had been an allocated seat one the seating plan would have left the last few rows empty as they don't exist on the planned aircraft. The result is that the loaded centre of gravity is far too far forward for the aircraft to rotate properly.
At least everyone, and all the cargo got onboard, just imagine the "fun" if the flight had been planned for an A321 and an A318 turned up - there would be a lot of folks and cargo left behind.....
Now if only the load master had checked to see the replacement aircraft was of the same type as the intended aircraft

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

I'm sorry, but I think that Martin is going way overboard looking for things that arn't really there in his obvious relatively limited understanding of what really goes on with air travel and the real basic principles of flight all together. :-(

I'm sorry Martin, but at times I think that you tend to get far too carried away on certain subjects (and principles) without the proper knowledge to justify your comments (this occurs more frequently than you think for a lot of us) which shows a lot us to of your obviously limited understanding of certain principals and factors in the real world that really shines through. Maybe some actual flight training would help you a great deal before making bold statements on this subject and many things in this world are like an onion, which have many layers to go through before you actually hit the target (which at times you seem to totally miss). ;-)

Cheers.

I'm sorry, but I think that Martin is going way overboard looking for things that arn't really there in his obvious relatively limited understanding of what really goes on with air travel and the real basic principles of flight all together. :-(

I'm sorry Martin, but at times I think that you tend to get far too carried away on certain subjects (and principles) without the proper knowledge to justify your comments (this occurs more frequently than you think for a lot of us) which shows a lot us to of your obviously limited understanding of certain principals and factors in the real world that really shines through. Maybe some actual flight training would help you a great deal before making bold statements on this subject and many things in this world are like an onion, which have many layers to go through before you actually hit the target (which at times you seem to totally miss)...

That's a rather strange angle of attack...

Aviation is safety critical...

So there is some valid excusable excuse that a passenger aircraft was dangerously loaded? (So much so that it was in very real danger of being destroyed...)

So, despite the safety critical nature of aviation, you are suggesting that there need be no safety checks or double checks to ensure that flying stays safe?...

Really?...


No need to remind me not to fly your airline.

(If you hadn't noticed, we very nearly had an aircraft lost, quite possibly killing all passengers and crew.)

In this case, at the very least, the captain was negligent in not checking that everything actually was really in place...


Fly safe!
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... Some time later the intended aircraft failed and had to be substituted (apparently very close to departure time). The load master appears to have assumed that the replacement aircraft would be of the same type as the intended one so didn't re-run the loading calculations with the correct type...

Maybe we are all being too 'honest' about this in assuming there was some innocent breakdown or omission in the required procedures...

In any case, the ethos of safety as in aviation, everything important/critical gets double-checked so that any innocent silliness gets picked up.


Instead:

Maybe there were commercial and/or personal career 'pressures' that persuaded the pilots to try flying a known incorrect plane loading and 'wing it'?...


Fly safe!
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Maybe there were commercial and/or personal career 'pressures' that persuaded the pilots to try flying a known incorrect plane loading and 'wing it'?...

No experienced professional pilot will consider putting their life, the lives of their passengers & colleagues at risk on "such" pressures.

Maybe there were commercial and/or personal career 'pressures' that persuaded the pilots to try ... and 'wing it'?...

No experienced professional pilot will consider putting their life, the lives of their passengers & colleagues at risk on "such" pressures.

Unfortunately, upon very rare occasions:


Mentour Pilot: Flying across Europe with a BROKEN engine!


All Engines Shut Down Just Before Landing - LaMia Flight 2933



Unbelievable but disastrously true...

Fly safe!
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

In the real world, one will always find negatives if one looks hard enough.

In the real world, one will always find negatives if one looks hard enough.

Unfortunately, all too easily so... However, this is where we're trying to keep at least aviation as safe as is reasonable...

No experienced professional pilot will consider putting their life, the lives of their passengers & colleagues at risk on "such" pressures.

We have examples where "such pressures" have completely gone against good common safe sense.

Which is where... Can we learn from that?

For example:

• Can we protect pilots from any commercial/career costs for doing the safe thing when faults/failures arise?
  
• Should we require that those in charge of costs and schedules must never be the pilot flying the plane or even anywhere near the cockpit?
  
• Do we give greater oversight to the ATC or an independent overseer so that flight plans, fuel, and loading must all be verified good before takeoff?
  

That last requirement would force the issue that airlines cannot make a last moment dangerously rushed unplanned plane swap just before takeoff!


Fly safe!
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Martin seems to be looking for conspiracy theory. The owner of the airplane doesn't want an insurance claim. Is that enough reason for him to pressure the load master to ignore the actual aircraft being used?

Same thing happens everywhere all the time. A human gets distracted and loses place on the list of items or checklist. Some people demand 100%, it is never going to happen. Try looking at the Apollo moon landings and the multiple near disasters and the actual disaster to understand no matter how many eyeballs look at something, it is only the best pair of eyeballs that counts. Remember Apollo had the best eyeballs available.

This may even be a case of GIGO. As none of us has access to the internal documents it is possible the load master was never informed of the change in aircraft. However one hopes the airline actually gives a copy of the complete loadmaster's report to the Pilot who should have checked that the tail numbers match. Perhaps the last chance to avert this kind of anomaly.

In every incident there is a chain of events that could have been broken is several places. Sometimes things align and crap happens.

As none of us has access to the internal documents it is possible the load master was never informed of the change in aircraft.

That was reported as part of the sequence of issues that lead to the problem occurring.
The notification of change in aircraft type didn't get passed along to all those that needed to know.

The Operational Control Centre (OCC) in Budapest, Hungary, sent an automated message to the Operational Handling Department (OHD) and Passenger Services Department (PSD) at Luton, but due to a "technical issue", it was not received.

This was noticed at 14:05 GMT and the OCC duty manager called the OHD to let them know of the change.

The details were altered in the relevant software, but the PSD was not informed and the passengers were therefore still seated in the old configuration.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Same thing happens everywhere all the time. A human gets distracted and loses place on the list of items or checklist. Some people demand 100%, it is never going to happen. Try looking at the Apollo moon landings and the multiple near disasters and the actual disaster to understand no matter how many eyeballs look at something, it is only the best pair of eyeballs that counts. Remember Apollo had the best eyeballs available.

As evidenced with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster which has been covered on this series of threads. A more recent one than that occurred several years ago with a ships cargo loaded haphazardly which shifted causing the ship to list dangerously.

What I find amazing compared to today is the pressure on loading the convoys during WWII did not lead to ships or aircraft loaded haphazardly.

Same thing happens everywhere all the time. A human gets distracted and loses place on the list of items or checklist. Some people demand 100%, it is never going to happen. Try looking at the Apollo moon landings and the multiple near disasters and the actual disaster to understand no matter how many eyeballs look at something, it is only the best pair of eyeballs that counts. Remember Apollo had the best eyeballs available.

As evidenced with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster which has been covered on this series of threads. A more recent one than that occurred several years ago with a ships cargo loaded haphazardly which shifted causing the ship to list dangerously.

What I find amazing compared to today is the pressure on loading the convoys during WWII did not lead to ships or aircraft loaded haphazardly.

Oh, I don't know about that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Chicago_disaster I might suspect that oops being classified might have something to do with the low report numbers.

Well aware of that disaster but refrain from commenting on it due to various reasons which is best left for the politics board.
However, the only ships that were listing into harbours were those suffering from bomb/torpedo damage not from being badly loaded.

The stevedores of old were very good at using Mk1 eyeballs to make sure that ships were loaded evenly.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

The stevedores of old were very good at using Mk1 eyeballs to make sure that ships were loaded evenly.

Also securing the loads to prevent shifting due to the submarine menace.

Same thing happens everywhere all the time. A human gets distracted and loses place on the list of items or checklist. Some people demand 100%, it is never going to happen. Try looking at the Apollo moon landings and the multiple near disasters and the actual disaster to understand no matter how many eyeballs look at something, it is only the best pair of eyeballs that counts. Remember Apollo had the best eyeballs available.

As evidenced with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster which has been covered on this series of threads. A more recent one than that occurred several years ago with a ships cargo loaded haphazardly which shifted causing the ship to list dangerously...

Apollo is in a very different league and is in stark contrast to the very mundane (and boring) and well practiced for multiple decades of safely flying aircraft and safely sailing ships...

Comparing the recent A321 aircraft loading near disaster, the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, and the ship vehicle transporter calamity (MV Höegh Osaka), (as far as I can see) they all have a very common set of threads of maintenance problems, undue haste/rush, and dangerous complacency.

Humans are very human. Which is why we have procedures and safety regulations... And hopefully inspectors to thoroughly check and enforce those regulations...

Also, those examples are why we have Inquiries to see how to plug any reckless 'loopholes'...


Fly safe!
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... looking for conspiracy theory. The owner of the airplane doesn't want an insurance claim...

No conspiracy theories needed! And certainly not for the A321 near-death loading.

Note that we have the Boeing 737MAX disasters as an example of 'insurance' and 'victim claims' being 'gamed' for short term profit...


Fly safe!
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Humans are very human.

Which is why continuous regulations will never be 100% safe.

Humans are very human.

Which is why continuous regulations will never be 100% safe.

We must accept this.

“Human genius has its limits, but stupidity does not.”