Ramp Worker Objected To Takeoff

MSNBC ^ | January 9,2003 | NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...He could have kept it from flying without damaging it one bit.

He could not have kept it from flying without getting fired and being prosecuted for interfering with a scheduled flight.

[Dan(9698)]

He could have called the tower and advised them, but would still have been fired.

[xjcsa]

Ok, a few points to make here regarding several posts. I am a customer service and ramp guy for a regional airline myself; we work with the Saab 340 aircraft, but I frequently fly on the Beech 1900, and I know some Beech 1900 pilots. My job includes weight and balance calculations (preplanning and final), as well as loading the aircraft.

First, the guy who allegedly objected is NOT a mechanic, contrary to one post. The ground crew that loads the aircraft and reports the cargo load to the flight crew are just that; none of them are mechanics, and none would be aware of the problems reported previously; therefore they would have no reason to ground the plane, and would not have the expertise to make that determination.

Secondly, it is VERY COMMON on full flights to consult with the flight crew about maximum load amounts. When I am involved with full flights close to either the weight limit or the center of gravity envelope limits, I usually consult the flight crew. If we are *very* close on weight or CG, we sometimes have to move bags around between compartments, or take other actions to get the aircraft legal to fly. It is not uncommon to have an aircraft take off within 100 pounds of the maximum; I have sent flights out within 3 pounds before which were also at the rearmost limit of the CG index. This is fundamentally safe; the limits are what they are for a reason.

That said, it is also not unusual for our workers to question whether we can add a couple bags, or whether we are ok as we are. The calculations, especially for center of gravity, are moderately complicated, and not easy to do in one's head. Again, this is not unusual.

This is important: THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF WHETHER AN AIRCRAFT IS WITHIN WEIGHT AND BALANCE LIMITS IS MADE BY THE *FLIGHT CREW*. They are ultimately responsible for whether the aircraft can go or not, not the ground crew.

Finally, I talked with a couple Beech 1900-D pilots today after they finished a flight about this accident. Their opinion was that, while the weight and balance of the aircraft could have (at most) played a SECONDARY role in this accident by exacerbating an existing problem, the primary cause had to be mechanical in nature. They said that even if the cargo bay was loaded full of gold bricks and all the passengers weighed 400 pounds, it would not behave the way this aircraft did. It may well have crashed, but in a different way.

P.S. HighWheeler, you seem to be quite an expert on what the airlines are all doing wrong. Care to enlighten us on your better ideas? Are you planning on starting your own airline with your considerable expertise? (By the way, my airline is profitable and has never had a fatal accident).

Another P.S.....For those of you who use words like "certainly" related to phrases like "pilot stupidity", please be careful tossing these things around, unless you are on the NTSB investigation team and know something we don't. Those pilots were human beings who are now dead, and it is just as likely (perhaps more likely) that they had no fault in this tragedy.

[Dan(9698)]

An accident is seldom or ever caused by one item. The airline is to be faulted for continuing to fly an airplane that had reported problems with pitch stability. They should have a way of passing on to the next pilot any problems so that the next pilot can be sure the problem has been resolved.

This appears to be a combination of aft loading, probably close to the aft center of gravity limit, and an uncalibrated pitch trim that had an actual preset position of considerable nose up.

Earlier flights show the instability which was overcome with muscle until the trim could be adjusted.

The problem became critical when the combination made it impossible to control quickly enough to prevent the crash.

The crash was caused by a failure of the reporting and correcting of mechanical problems.

[Mark17]

He could have called the tower and advised them, but would still have been fired.

Having worked in a Control Tower for 20 years, I can assure you that we controllers would not even take the call in the first place. Even if by some very long stretch of the imagination, he had managed to get a call through, they would not listen to him, because it is not their responsibility to determine if an aircraft is air worthy. In the end, it is the pilot who makes the final determination.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...In the end, it is the pilot who makes the final determination.

I am a pilot and I realize that. I was responding to a post that stated that the ground guy could have stopped the airplane. I do not think he could without going to jail.

[Mark17]

I do not think he could without going to jail.

I have no idea if he would or not, I was simply saying that I was an air traffic controller for 20 years, and would never accept a call as you described. That is a non ATC function. Once the cops called me and asked me to call them every time an aircraft taxied. I told them to go jump in the lake, I was not going to do it. Later, the boss called and told me he said the same thing, he just used a little more tact than I did.