Does this mean that the two a/c in question have at long last been broken up?
Thanks galdri. It’s all perfectly clear now, cheers
Deano
If I remember correctly the FMS will calculate a ZFW, and will know what fuel you have on board, but it won’t know the Traffic Load, this will be entered in manually. So it was pretty obvious this was loaded in and not crosschecked somehow.
Deano, can I question this in a manner that is made understandable to those on this forum not familiar with aircraft weight and balance, and which is no way meant to question or undermine your professional standing.
My confusion lies in not knowing the onboard system used to calculate the desired weights and I stand to be corrected on my assumptions. This incident does however appear to highlight a failure of automated cross checking.
Unless I am very much mistaken, the three main weights used for aircraft operations are Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) , Take-Off Weight (TOW) and Landing Weight (LW)
During the manual calculation of loadsheets, the ZFW is derived by taking the Aircraft Prepared for Service Weight (APS – Basically, the weight of the a/c as it stands including catering and any spares carried, but without fuel, passengers, baggage or cargo) and adding to it the Traffic / Payload (passengers, baggage or cargo).
To this you add the fuel weight minus the weight of fuel used for taxying to give you your Take-Off weight.
From this figure you then subtract the Burn-Off (Fuel used during flight) to give the Landing weight
In an automated system, the variables that need to be manually imputed as the weights vary are APS, Traffic/Payload, Fuel and Burn-Off. From these inputs the required three weights can be calculated and displayed
During the incident in question we are told that “The investigation has determined that the pre-flight take-off performance calculations were based on an incorrect take-off weight (262.9 tonnes, instead of 362.9 tonnes) that was inadvertently entered into the take-off performance software on a laptop computer used by the flight crew”. It was the Take-Off weight and not the Traffic Load tnat was a hundred tons less than it should have been, but why was the need to manually input this figure and even more so, how is it possible to do so? Doesn’t the system calculate this figure based on the explanation above.
OK, it was a human error that caused this incident but surely it is a fundamental error that the FMS did not pick it up.
Am I being too simplistic and missing something?
What I can’t understand is why onboard systems didn’t detect the error.
To my mind, and in it’s simplest form, a zero fuel weight is the aircraft weight + payload . To this you add your fuel load to give you your Take-off weight. In this instance, the F/O entered a Take-off weight which was 100 tons less than it should have been.
Now, the onboard software knew the zero fuel weight. It also knew the fuel load. How come it didn’t detect that the Take-off weight was way below the correct figure.
Standing by to be corrected.
Wonder if Tommyinyork is paying attention?
G-SPNA used to be Zoom’s too didn’t it ?
Yes, as C-GZNA and G-CZNA
Monarch will be getting one of their a330’s according to jethros.
I say no such thing.
G-DIMB which is leased to Air Med will be replaced by one of Monarch’s own A330’s in March 10
Anyone know the current whereabouts of the rest of the fleet?
Just updated with location details
http://www.jethros.eu/fleets/fleet_listings/flyglobespan.htm
Sad that all them are going but im glad MIDY is staying
Just been advised that G-MIDY is to be wet leased to Swiss to operate LHR – GVA services
Disposals
For disposal
A320’s G-MEDE, G-MIDP, G-MIDR (Dates awaited)
A321’s G-MIDC, G-MIDL (Dates awaited)
A330’s G-WWBB, G-WWBM (Both to be WFU 09 Jan 10)
Anyone know which planes are going? Will G-MIDY be staying?
If I understand correctly, the A321’s are staying whilst the disposals will come from the A319/320’s along with two A330’s. and 2/3 Embraer 145’s
Remember, the G-MID- range A320’s were delivered in reverse alphabetical order with G-MIDY being the first. Logically it would seem safe to assume that it would go first, but this would be dependant on whatever the lease agreement is for this a/c. It’s the lease agreements that I understand Lufthansa are unhappy about due to the financial aspects of them being exsesive – in their opinion
As soon as I can get confirmation of what’s happening, it will be published on the site.
Globespan is a poorly run airline which had serious problems with delays. Simply caused by bad management.
What utter tripe!!!!!
When did she leave EMA?
30 Jun 09. Re-regd N934BV 03 Jul 09. Expect it to re-surface in South America.