曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
was because of an incident that he recalled from his previous company, a number of years beforehand,
which involved a Boeing 737 that had rejected a takeoff above V1 as a result of a CG outside the
forward limit.) A second Load Form was then produced which reflected the new distribution of the
baggage but still indicated that the passengers were subject to Standard Loading ie evenly spread
between the bays. Using this data the commander compiled the Trim Sheet. The result produced an
aft CG loading, which was within the limits. The Trim Sheet also included a Last Minute Change of
Airbus A320-214, G-OOAR
3
an additional two males, two females and five bags. This extra traffic load came to 369 kg, which
was less than the 500 kg limit above which a new Trim Sheet would be required.
During most of these exchanges the FO was engaged on other duties associated with the turn-round
and was not privy to much of the conversations. He was aware that the baggage was being loaded in
Holds 3 and 4 at the commander's request, and his recollection was that passengers were sat at the
front and rear of the cabin. Before starting the aircraft the commander asked him to carry out a gross
error check on the Trim Sheet. In doing so, the FO's primary concern was to ensure that the weight
calculations were correct. He remembered that the handling agent entered the flight deck on at least
three occasions during the crew's pre-flight preparations and each time the crew explained to them
why they could not depart any earlier. The aircraft taxied at 1150 hrs.
After the incident a Trim Sheet was compiled on the basis of the actual passenger loading. This
produced a CG which was significantly beyond the aft limit of the CG envelope. A calculation of the
CG based on the handling agent's original non standard passenger loading, with all the baggage placed
in Hold 1 or split between Holds 3 and 4, confirmed that the aircraft would have departed with the CG
within limits in either case.
Loading Procedures
The Operator's loading procedures in the Planning Manual for this aircraft type, which forms part of
the Operations Manual, include two paragraphs on the commander's (Captain's) responsibility.
They state:
By the nature of its business, the Company itself can have very little 'presence' at the large
majority of the outstations it serves. It is, therefore, obliged to rely on handling agents for
some of the loading documentation and all of the actual, physical, loading arrangements.
Handling agents cannot always be relied upon to comply properly with the Company's laiddown
procedures. Because of this, Captains, who are usually the senior Company
representative present, have an overall responsibility to take such measures as are
reasonably practicable to ensure that the procedures and requirements given in this section
are complied with.
A Load Form and a Trim Sheet are required to be completed as an accurate record of the load and trim
of an aircraft prior to each flight. The forms are specifically designed for single sector loads and,
under normal circumstances, the ground handling agents complete the Load Form and, using this
information, the commanders complete the Trim Sheet.
Passengers, baggage and freight are subject to 'Standard Loading' or 'Non-Standard Loading'.
Standard loading involves distributing the passengers evenly throughout the cabin and placing one
third of the baggage and freight in Hold 1 and two thirds in Holds 3 and 4. Non-standard loading
entails an uneven distribution of passengers in the cabin and a distribution of baggage and freight that
is different from standard loading.
The Load Form indicates which method of loading has been employed. The mass and CG
calculations are completed on the Trim Sheet using different trim tables for standard and non-standard
loading.
With regards to passenger configuration, the operator's procedures advise cabin crew that, in the event
of less than a full load of passengers, the passengers should be distributed as follows:
FWD cabin 25%
MID cabin 50%
AFT cabin 25%
Airbus A320-214, G-OOAR
4
This amounts to non-standard loading, in that the passengers are not distributed evenly throughout the
cabin. The cabin crew are given no other advice on loading procedures.
Analysis
The handling agent had allocated passengers from Kefallinia seats in Rows 1 to 5 (the front of the
cabin) and Rows 24 to 30 (the rear of the cabin), leaving Rows 6 to 23 and half of Row 24 for
passengers joining in Zakinthos. This represented non-standard loading. However, the handling
agent completed and signed the standard loading section on the Load Form. Had the commander seen
a copy of the handling agent's seating plan, he would have been aware of the error.
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
航空资料8(113)
