Jetstar under investigation for weight and balance incidents

[GarrettM]

Jetstar getting fast and loose with weight calculations

How often do you suppose this goes on?

Jetstar plane investigated after passengers had to move due to balance issue - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[BAM1748]

Re: Jetstar getting fast and loose with weight calculations

And possibly not the first time.

 

[TomVexille]

The ATSB is investigating JQ after a couple of weight and balance incidents.

From the article:

Jetstar's procedures for calculating the weight of its aircraft are under review by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau after two of its planes took off with more passengers than had been expected by the pilots in October.On October 29, the pilot flying a Jetstar plane from Melbourne to Perth noticed the aircraft was nose-heavy as it was taking off and was forced to pull back on the controls nearly to the limits in order to raise the aircraft's nose.
Once the A321 was airborne, the pilots asked the cabin crew to confirm the passenger numbers and seating locations. The updated information was entered into the computer and the pilots found the aircraft was outside the loading limits for take-off and landing. Passengers were then moved to other seats throughout the cabin to return the aircraft to within the allowable limits for the remainder of the flight and the landing.
Just 10 days earlier, an A320 flight from Brisbane to Melbourne took off with 16 more passengers than had been advised to the pilots, with the aircraft about 1328 kilograms heavier than the take-off weight used to calculate take-off and landing data for the flight. The landing data was recalculated prior to the descent in Melbourne.
The ATSB has deemed the incidents "serious", although there were no injuries in either case. It has begun an investigation that will include interviews with the flight and ground operations crews, a review of Jetstar's internal procedures regarding aircraft loading and a review of preventative and recovery-type risk controls for aircraft loading.

Jetstar procedures under investigation after planes took off too heavy | Stuff.co.nz

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I was somewhat amazed at a recent issue I had with JQ issuing and then proceeding to board myself and another pax with the same seat allocated. It absolutely astounds me that the computer check-in would allow the BPs to be scanned without issue, with two people supposedly occupying the same seat. How 16 people managed to sneak on board without some warning notification being raised is just unbelievable. TT was grounded for issues that some might suggest were not as serious as these two JQ debacles, so when is JQ going to be grounded???

JQ has problems with check in staff just shifting people without valid reason even after check in, so it appears to me that JQ needs more than a cursory glance. Their boarding practices seem to warrant an extensive investigation.......preferably without risking the lives of those flying.

 

[mannej]

I was somewhat amazed at a recent issue I had with JQ issuing and then proceeding to board myself and another pax with the same seat allocated. It absolutely astounds me that the computer check-in would allow the BPs to be scanned without issue, with two people supposedly occupying the same seat. How 16 people managed to sneak on board without some warning notification being raised is just unbelievable. TT was grounded for issues that some might suggest were not as serious as these two JQ debacles, so when is JQ going to be grounded???

JQ has problems with check in staff just shifting people without valid reason even after check in, so it appears to me that JQ needs more than a cursory glance. Their boarding practices seem to warrant an extensive investigation.......preferably without risking the lives of those flying.

Busting height minimums not as serious? They must be kidding...

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Busting height minimums not as serious? They must be kidding...

I didn't suggest "busting height minimums" aren't serious, but a jet can safely fly under those minimums. The JQ reports suggest such poor balancing that the pilot struggled to lift the nose. That's a risk of crashing so I'd say, no......not kidding.

 

[mannej]

I didn't suggest "busting height minimums" aren't serious, but a jet can safely fly under those minimums. The JQ reports suggest such poor balancing that the pilot struggled to lift the nose. That's a risk of crashing so I'd say, no......not kidding.

Both have the same risk if not corrected do they not? I'd suggest both should be seen as serious without taking away from the other incidents.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Both have the same risk if not corrected do they not? I'd suggest both should be seen as serious without taking away from the other incidents.

Who exactly, is taking away from other incidents? I have said both are serious, one airline was grounded, one has not yet been. I wonder why not? The fortunate part is that no one has been injured by any of the incidents. TT was crippled to ensure that, JQ is left flying despite issues that many would consider to be too incredible to be true.......but apparently it is and from a personal stand point, I believe that flying in controlled manner under the minimum is less serious than overloading/mismanagement of weight to an extent that the pilot struggles to lift the nose of an aircraft on takeoff.

 

[eastwest101]

I wonder if these spate of fairly recent incidents with weight and balance (distribution of pax within cabin) is possibly related to the removal of free seat selection from JQ domestic flights? Remember they removed seat selection from the kiosks first, then online, then from the mobile online site, remember with the loss of pax choice in this process we probably lost the natural pattern of humans to spread themselves more evenly about the cabin. Still doesn't explain why check-in staff could allocate too many seats either fore/aft or all in the middle to get to some sort of potential mistrim of an aircraft.

The pax number discrepancy headcount issue may be separate, but it seems pretty serious as well, possibly a simple transposition error or local computer systems failure or even some sort of undocumented human shortcut that resulted in out of date or incorrect pax number data being entered?

 

[Austman]

I have noticed, on my last 2 (recent) JQd flights, that the BP scanning before boarding at the gate was odd.

They just point the laser wand at the (self printed) BP's bar code and within a split second (way, way faster than QFd for example) hand the BP back to you.

I suspected both times: there's no way that it was OK'ed by their system.

Or if it was, they seem to have a system that can do it faster than any other airline that I've traveled on.

 

[madrooster]

Or if it was, they seem to have a system that can do it faster than any other airline that I've traveled on.

JQ/Navitaire uses 2D barcodes for domestic (same as your regular product barcodes at the supermarket). They are much faster to scan than a 3D barcode used by full service carriers.

 

[Austman]

JQ/Navitaire uses 2D barcodes for domestic (same as your regular product barcodes at the supermarket). They are much faster to scan than a 3D barcode used by full service carriers.

Is it the physical scanning time that takes other airlines so long? I wouldn't have thought so... More the system response time after the physical scan.

 

[madrooster]

Is it the physical scanning time that takes other airlines so long? I wouldn't have thought so... More the system response time after the physical scan.

It's a bit of both. The 3D barcodes definitely take longer to pickup as 3D barcodes store a lot more data so the accuracy of the scan is a lot more important and thus takes longer to pickup all the details.

JQ's computer does respond when the barcodes are scanned. If you scan the JQ barcode with a phone it's very very basic. Only has seat number and sequence number or something. No real info. When scanned, the boarding terminal actually brings up the name etc. so it is doing a check.

I suspect what's happened in the case where two passengers had the same seat assignment, JQ had moved one of the passengers to another seat assignment but didn't give them a new boarding pass. Something along those lines.

 

[TomVexille]

Who exactly, is taking away from other incidents? I have said both are serious, one airline was grounded, one has not yet been. I wonder why not? The fortunate part is that no one has been injured by any of the incidents. TT was crippled to ensure that, JQ is left flying despite issues that many would consider to be too incredible to be true.......but apparently it is and from a personal stand point, I believe that flying in controlled manner under the minimum is less serious than overloading/mismanagement of weight to an extent that the pilot struggles to lift the nose of an aircraft on takeoff.

I'm curious as to why the ATSB is investigating this incident vs CASA grounding TT.

Maybe if the ATSB decides that JQ has a problem (which they obviously do), CASA grounds JQ and imposes conditions on their AOC.

Or maybe since TT were a foreign airline it was politically okay to ground them.

 

[basso]

Or maybe since TT were a foreign airline it was politically okay to ground them.

There was a bit more to the TT grounding - and much of it was around the way things were being handles internally in the airline.

 

[TomVexille]

There was a bit more to the TT grounding - and much of it was around the way things were being handles internally in the airline.

Yes I'm aware that TT had been given a "Show Cause" notice and didn't satisfy CASA's requirements. But you won't convince me that this isn't an incredibly serious issue that JQ has. And one that could easily justify grounding until JQ can prove that they have solved the issue.