Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Passenger distribution did not match the load sheet distribution.
Luckily this had a good outcome. Luckily people went back and researched why this happened. Hopefully the "technical issue" has now been resolved. (www.bbc.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
"The AAIB said it would not disclose the name of the airline involved."
It was easy enough to find out. A quick search of a couple of aviation databases reveals that it was Wizz Air a Hungarian airline. https://wizzair.com/en-gb#
Another take on the incident:
https://simpleflying.com/wizz-a321-out-of-cg/
Had the runway length been shorter and/or an engine loss occurred at or after V1 it may not have worked out so well.
Best
It was easy enough to find out. A quick search of a couple of aviation databases reveals that it was Wizz Air a Hungarian airline. https://wizzair.com/en-gb#
Another take on the incident:
https://simpleflying.com/wizz-a321-out-of-cg/
Had the runway length been shorter and/or an engine loss occurred at or after V1 it may not have worked out so well.
Best
If the cvr had more than 30 minutes it would make interesting listening when they hit vr and the nose wouldn't come up. Must be nice to have a lot of runway.
There should be at least two hours of voice on the CVR as required in ICAO Annex 6 “Operation of Aircraft”, Vol I and the minimum performance standards (MPS) qualification and documentation of European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE) document ED-112A, Minimum Operational Performance Specification for Crash Protected Airborne Recorder Systems. ED-112A sections specific to CVR systems are detailed in FAA Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C123c. A CVR, installed in airplanes of a maximum certificated take-off mass of over 5 700 kg (12,500 lbs.) for which the individual certificate of airworthiness is first issued on or after 1 January 1990, should be capable of retaining the information recorded during at least the last two hours of its operation.
That pretty much cover all the Airbus products.
The question is did the Hungarian civil aviation authorities (if any) take the time and go to the trouble of analyzing the CVR and FDR data to determine just how the aircraft performed during the takeoff roll and initial climb (1st segment) and what takeoff and climb performance scenarios were possible with the out-of-balance condition the aircraft was operating with especially had they encountered an emergency at or after V1.
Best
That pretty much cover all the Airbus products.
The question is did the Hungarian civil aviation authorities (if any) take the time and go to the trouble of analyzing the CVR and FDR data to determine just how the aircraft performed during the takeoff roll and initial climb (1st segment) and what takeoff and climb performance scenarios were possible with the out-of-balance condition the aircraft was operating with especially had they encountered an emergency at or after V1.
Best
Thanks for the reply. I was under the illusion that only 30 minutes was required.
I'm always very happy to learn the facts.
Again, Thanks.
I'm always very happy to learn the facts.
Again, Thanks.
If the Stab trim was set for evenly balanced light cabin load and then swap out for an A-321, the heavier front end loading probably required a more nose down pitch trim setting especially if a flex takeoff power setting was used?I suppose this would cause the aircraft to not respond normally at Vr at which time the PF increased to max power. The flip side scenario is a bit easier as the nose goes light prior to Vr and you wind up trimming forward while cursing the baggage loaders!
Interesting when the nose is light that you use the trim and not just forward pressure on the stick. As to this nose heavy incident, even if the PF increased power, he still needed more runway. And do today's engines need time to spool up ?
Referring to a past situation where the ground crew swapped cargo hold percentages. Generally, a 70/30 split on the heavy I flew, however, when a absent minded ground crew reverses the loading and you really have a 30/70 split, and at 80 kt the nose goes very light you know right away that the nose wheel will pop off the ground well before Vr. While maintaining forward pressure you roll in more forward trim to prevent it. Also, spool up time from a flex takeoff power setting to max power in counted in 2 - 4 seconds at most. This particular ac type had 4 cargo holds 1-70%, 2. overflow 3- 30% 4 - when #2 was full.
Hi Highflyer,
Thanks again for the explanation. I understand now using the stick to hold the nose where you want it and then trimming until there's no pressure. I had thought you meant just using the trimmer to move the nose. I had also assumed it would be extremely rare for baggage to mess up the c of g. I guess there's no longer a F/E out there on the tarmac checking on the loaders. As for the 2 - 4 second spool up time, its a lot quicker than what seemed to take forever on the low-bypass JT3Ds.
Thanks
Thanks again for the explanation. I understand now using the stick to hold the nose where you want it and then trimming until there's no pressure. I had thought you meant just using the trimmer to move the nose. I had also assumed it would be extremely rare for baggage to mess up the c of g. I guess there's no longer a F/E out there on the tarmac checking on the loaders. As for the 2 - 4 second spool up time, its a lot quicker than what seemed to take forever on the low-bypass JT3Ds.
Thanks
As soon as the seat belt sign was turned off, we "visitors were asked to resume our ticketed seats. In my case, a fellow larger than I had been asked to take my Business Class seat, He was "rewarded" with a handful of mini Jack Daniels.
There was no redistribution of load for landing. The front end guys must have leveled the load with fuel movements. All in all, a good flight :)