Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BMI A330 seats cancelled, load order changed, wondering why...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BMI A330 seats cancelled, load order changed, wondering why...

    Hey guys,

    I was recently on a BMI A332 flight from OERK (RUH) to EGLL (LHR) on July 31st, 2009. The aircraft (G-WWBD) was on the London-Jeddah-Riyadh-London leg for BMI, and I boarded at Riyadh.

    Anyways, at check-in we were told that 60 seats had to be cancelled on the flight due to "technical problems" on the aircraft and that only aisle seats were available.

    Upon boarding I found that the passengers from the incoming JED leg occupied only the front ~40% of the aircraft, and were all in the window seats. The passengers boarding on the RUH leg were also in the front 40%, but all in the aisle seats. The rear of the aircraft was completely empty and the flight attendants repeatedly stressed the fact that people should not move around too much, congregate at certain points, or change their seat, or use the rear bathrooms.

    I was wondering why this happened? Of interest is the fact that this is the same aircraft that lost a winglet while in the air due to a lighting strike earlier, though almost a month had passed since that so I doubt it was the same thing. Could it have been the engines not operating at full capacity? If so, why the COG change and the frontal placement of the passengers? Possibly a fuel issue perhaps? Was one of the tanks or pumps inoperational? I'm not very well versed in COG and load order so apologies if I sound crazy.

    I was hoping someone here could shed some light on the issue... purely from an educational point of view. Is this a common occurrence?

    Cheers.

  • #2
    Complete speculation here, but maybe there was just some minor technical issue with emergency exits or oxygen supply to the rear section or some other reason that meant they couldn't put passengers there for safety reasons. I wouldn't have thought it would be issues with engines or fuel since I can't see that would have any impact on where the passengers sat.

    Steve.

    Comment


    • #3
      I had a similar thing happen to me on a Dubai-to-Istanbul flight on an Airbus - I don't recall the type. I also had this happen on flights in the USA on DC-10 and L-1011 aircaft when flying with only 20-30 passengers (said to occupy assigned seats during take-off and landing).

      Comment


      • #4
        It would be interesting to know what the real reason is. Sounds very strange.

        I have some wild speculation (especially since my knowledge of the airline industry is nearly nil): perhaps there was a staff shortage; IE some *stewardesses called in sick or were fired; so perhaps regulations only let them fly a certain number of passengers with a limited staff and perhaps for security regulations they had to be particular about where they sat and how they congregate.. Perhaps there was a problem with the caterers (part of the menu spoiled or contaminated) and they couldn’t get enough food for all the passengers. Perhaps there was money/credit issues that prevented the aircraft from getting sufficient fuel and/or provisions for a full passenger load.

        Those are some of the simpler more benign explanations I can think of.

        Though some of the first things that pops into many people head is probably the least likely but the most dramatic. Engines not producing enough power; structural problems, etc…


        *please note that my word “stewardess” is used to needle the politically correct liberal fascists. IE femi-Nazis

        Comment


        • #5
          I can't imagine any pilot would fly an aircraft with known structural or power plant problems. It had to be a CG issue. They may have been carrying something heavy in an aft cargo hold. Any aircraft can have a CG issue, even the large ones.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
            I can't imagine any pilot would fly an aircraft with known structural or power plant problems. It had to be a CG issue. They may have been carrying something heavy in an aft cargo hold. Any aircraft can have a CG issue, even the large ones.
            Pardon my ignorance here, but wouldn't that be like knowingly flying an a/c with a mechanical or structural problem? Isn't that like intentionally risking the lives of everyone on board?

            I know on small aircraft like atr's and dash ??? they sometimes re-arrange passengers to "even the load"

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks for the informative responses everyone. It certainly seems very strange, and I too would really like to know the actual reason behind the change.

              The captain just said that there had been "technical problems" on the aircraft on the inbound leg from Heathrow and that mechanics had done "what they could to get the aircraft flying again" and hence many seats had been cancelled and it was imperative that we not change our seats.

              The announcement seemed pretty strange and quite a few passengers exchanged worried glances at his words, so I was wondering what the possible causes could be.

              Googling reveals no mention of any major problem aboard G-WWBD though.

              I think it could well be a CG issue, I also noticed the AOA on climb out wasn't as steep as it usually is on an A332, if that could have a possible correlation. However I could be completely wrong on that one since the human mind does work in strange ways, lol.

              @ATFS - If the issue was food or credit, though, why the focus on the seating arrangement? I can't see how a shortage of food would affect passenger placement... so it seemed to me to be a CG issue.

              Cheers.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Asad View Post
                Thanks for the informative responses everyone. It certainly seems very strange, and I too would really like to know the actual reason behind the change.

                The captain just said that there had been "technical problems" on the aircraft on the inbound leg from Heathrow and that mechanics had done "what they could to get the aircraft flying again" and hence many seats had been cancelled and it was imperative that we not change our seats.

                The announcement seemed pretty strange and quite a few passengers exchanged worried glances at his words, so I was wondering what the possible causes could be.

                Googling reveals no mention of any major problem aboard G-WWBD though.

                I think it could well be a CG issue, I also noticed the AOA on climb out wasn't as steep as it usually is on an A332, if that could have a possible correlation. However I could be completely wrong on that one since the human mind does work in strange ways, lol.

                @ATFS - If the issue was food or credit, though, why the focus on the seating arrangement? I can't see how a shortage of food would affect passenger placement... so it seemed to me to be a CG issue.

                Cheers.
                Forward cargo hold door inop so all cargo/luggage to the rear, meaning pax to the front..

                Maybe a fuel pump issue with the trim tank in the tail. INOP, tank full, thus can't get that weight off the tail as the flight progresses.
                -Not an Airbus or Boeing guy here.
                -20 year veteran on the USN Lockheed P-3 Orion.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Asad View Post
                  If the issue was food or credit, though, why the focus on the seating arrangement? I can't see how a shortage of food would affect passenger placement... so it seemed to me to be a CG issue.
                  I don't think it's very likely, I'm just merely hypothesizing and saying it's possible. As far as something like a food shortage affecting passengers placement I think it would be possible in a combination with security measures. If you herd people in like cattle it's easy to keep an eye on them and they additionally keep an eye on each other; whereas if you let people spread out, have more privacy and mill about it makes it easier for potential terrorists to plot and organize and to start implementing their plans thusly delaying and reducing the likelihood of detection.

                  I agree it's more likely that's a CG problem. And think P3 super be's scenario sounds like the most likely given so far. Not that I have any expertise in this specific area.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    @P3 - both sound very logical explanations.

                    Cheers once again for the insight guys. I might have a chat with the pilots about this if I can on my return EGLL-OERK flight in the near future and see if they can shed light on the issue.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                      Pardon my ignorance here, but wouldn't that be like knowingly flying an a/c with a mechanical or structural problem? Isn't that like intentionally risking the lives of everyone on board?

                      I know on small aircraft like atr's and dash ??? they sometimes re-arrange passengers to "even the load"
                      I wouldn't think so. I think P3 gave a good answer on maybe an inop forward cargo door or tail tank. Those aren't structural problems and I don't know what would constitute a no-go on the tail tank not working. The airline may have contracted to carry something particularly heavy for a large price that made it worth it to limit passengers, and maybe they could only get that item aft. If you run the numbers and the CG fits you go flying.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The only defects we can carry that limit passenger distribution are oxy supply or an unserviceable exit/exits.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by AJ View Post
                          The only defects we can carry that limit passenger distribution are oxy supply or an unserviceable exit/exits.
                          That's what I was thinking. I would think anything structural would be in the ferry flight category.

                          Thanks for the info AJ.

                          Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
                          I agree it's more likely that's a CG problem. And think P3 super be's scenario sounds like the most likely given so far. Not that I have any expertise in this specific area.
                          Not much more than you... I do have the structural experience, I'm just not experienced in the self loading cargo world.

                          Had a 4 inch hole punched into an engine nacelle from a maintenance stand while changing an engine in Thailand. We had already sat there for 40 days waiting on the engine, and were ready to get the hell out of there... Didn't have any material or equipment to patch the hole so was able to barrow a drill from the Thai's did some stop drilling on the metal were the tears stopped. (What stop drilling does is put a relief into the metal and help, if not prevent further tearing of the metal, this practice is mostly used on cracks.) Then to keep airflow off the damage I put some good ole duct tape(no self respecting metalsmith worth a shit would be caught dead anywhere without a trusty roll of duct tape) over the damage and a huge band-aid i bought out in town for some laughs , and away we went.
                          -Not an Airbus or Boeing guy here.
                          -20 year veteran on the USN Lockheed P-3 Orion.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            caveat: my flying experience is far from technical, just lots and lots of miles flown as a passenger.

                            i have been on several flights where the flight was delayed once the crew discovered inoperative "trim pumps." I assume these to be the fuel transfer pumps. that said, and again, i'm assuming here, if aircraft are somewhat sensitive to unbalanced trim, how is it safe to fly using passengers as ballast? sounds like that is just begging for a problem. take for instance the aircraft has a "trim pump" failure in flight. now what? shuffle passengers around till they get it right? oh and if you do some basic math, ditching 60 passengers and averaging each at 175 lbs, you get 10500 lbs. no small number to be sure.

                            if the theory of taking on heavy well paying cargo is true, remind me never to fly BMI, where dollars mean more than lives (yes, to some extent this is true of the entire industry...). that must have 10500 lbs of some pretty fancy crap!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                              how is it safe to fly using passengers as ballast?
                              Little secret... Its done on EVERY flight... Some are just a little easier than others.

                              One of the little "new guy" things we do to new pilots... When they are in the seat, and in control of the aircraft. We will have 3 or 4 people, don't take much. to walk up and down the tube of the aircraft. All together... Those people walking back and forth up and down the tube together is enough weight to screw with the trim of the aircraft. So "new" guy for about 5 mins or so, is constantly adjusting aircraft trim to keep straight and level flight, till either he figures out whats going on or someone tells him... Quite a riot...
                              -Not an Airbus or Boeing guy here.
                              -20 year veteran on the USN Lockheed P-3 Orion.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X