37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 286749 |
Time | |
Date | 199410 |
Day | Fri |
Local Time Of Day | 0001 To 0600 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : cwa |
State Reference | WI |
Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
Environment | |
Light | Night |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Medium Transport, High Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng |
Flight Phase | ground : preflight other |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer instruction : trainee |
Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : instrument pilot : cfi |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 6500 flight time type : 4000 |
ASRS Report | 286749 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain instruction : instructor oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | none taken : unable |
Consequence | Other |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
While doing training operations, I observed that the aircraft did not meet weight and balance requirements as outlined by flight manual part 1, section 4, page 36. In the past, our requirements were different and I had flown several times, training in aircraft, loaded just as this one was. I brought the fact that the aircraft weights did not all fall within the envelope for takeoff and landing, to the attention of a line captain and my training officer. They both thought I was wrong. However, what they were telling me about weight and balance was different than what we covered in recurrent ground school just 2 weeks before. This points out some confusion or disagreement within the training department. We could avoid operating outside the envelope if we were all trained the same. Due to cost cutting pressures by management, training is much less in depth than it has been in the past. Because I felt my job was at stake and I knew we had trained in the aircraft in yrs past loaded the same, we continued the training.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AN ACR TRAINEE FO THINKS THAT HIS ACFT WAS FLOWN OUTSIDE HIS ACR'S WT AND BAL CRITERIA.
Narrative: WHILE DOING TRAINING OPS, I OBSERVED THAT THE ACFT DID NOT MEET WT AND BAL REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED BY FLT MANUAL PART 1, SECTION 4, PAGE 36. IN THE PAST, OUR REQUIREMENTS WERE DIFFERENT AND I HAD FLOWN SEVERAL TIMES, TRAINING IN ACFT, LOADED JUST AS THIS ONE WAS. I BROUGHT THE FACT THAT THE ACFT WTS DID NOT ALL FALL WITHIN THE ENVELOPE FOR TKOF AND LNDG, TO THE ATTN OF A LINE CAPT AND MY TRAINING OFFICER. THEY BOTH THOUGHT I WAS WRONG. HOWEVER, WHAT THEY WERE TELLING ME ABOUT WT AND BAL WAS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE COVERED IN RECURRENT GND SCHOOL JUST 2 WKS BEFORE. THIS POINTS OUT SOME CONFUSION OR DISAGREEMENT WITHIN THE TRAINING DEPT. WE COULD AVOID OPERATING OUTSIDE THE ENVELOPE IF WE WERE ALL TRAINED THE SAME. DUE TO COST CUTTING PRESSURES BY MGMNT, TRAINING IS MUCH LESS IN DEPTH THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST. BECAUSE I FELT MY JOB WAS AT STAKE AND I KNEW WE HAD TRAINED IN THE ACFT IN YRS PAST LOADED THE SAME, WE CONTINUED THE TRAINING.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.