Computer glitch causes overweight takeoff at the new UA
Aug 10, 2012, 8:07 pm
#1
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Computer glitch causes overweight takeoff at the new UA
It's no longer just a convenience issue; UA now endangers passengers and crews with their IT incompetence:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...tml?cmpid=yhoo
One of the helpful UA pilot posters alluded to this or something similar recently, and this incident is disturbing.
United Overweight Takeoff on Computer Glitches Prompts Changes
A computer breakdown caused a United Continental Holdings Inc. (UAL) flight to take off earlier this year about 20,000 pounds (9,071 kilograms) heavier than pilots believed, prompting the carrier to add extra checks to ensure accurate weight calculations.
United sent pilots a weight estimate that assumed the coach section of the Boeing Co. (BA) 737-900 was empty when it was full, according to three people familiar with the incident who asked not to be named because they weren’t authorized to speak about it.
While the pilots, who didn’t catch the mistake, had difficulty getting the jetliner airborne, the plane wasn’t damaged and the flight was completed without incident, one of the people familiar with the event said. The pilots reported the trouble to a United program that encourages employees to identify safety issues, according to another person.
A computer breakdown caused a United Continental Holdings Inc. (UAL) flight to take off earlier this year about 20,000 pounds (9,071 kilograms) heavier than pilots believed, prompting the carrier to add extra checks to ensure accurate weight calculations.
United sent pilots a weight estimate that assumed the coach section of the Boeing Co. (BA) 737-900 was empty when it was full, according to three people familiar with the incident who asked not to be named because they weren’t authorized to speak about it.
While the pilots, who didn’t catch the mistake, had difficulty getting the jetliner airborne, the plane wasn’t damaged and the flight was completed without incident, one of the people familiar with the event said. The pilots reported the trouble to a United program that encourages employees to identify safety issues, according to another person.
One of the helpful UA pilot posters alluded to this or something similar recently, and this incident is disturbing.
Aug 10, 2012, 8:21 pm
#2
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 1K, HH Diamond
Posts: 234
As an IT guy I take umbrage at the suggestion that this was an IT error. Sure something went wrong and sure United, by and large, has crappy systems. However, there is no indication that this was a system error. Perhaps the person entering the data was the problem.
Besides, the pilots should have known that they didn't have an empty plane.
Besides, the pilots should have known that they didn't have an empty plane.
Aug 10, 2012, 8:32 pm
#3
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,814
As an IT guy I take umbrage at the suggestion that this was an IT error. Sure something went wrong and sure United, by and large, has crappy systems. However, there is no indication that this was a system error. Perhaps the person entering the data was the problem.
Besides, the pilots should have known that they didn't have an empty plane.
Besides, the pilots should have known that they didn't have an empty plane.
Although it is highly possible that SHARES has become self aware and is now trying to kill all of humanity.
Aug 10, 2012, 8:36 pm
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,068
As an IT guy I take umbrage at the suggestion that this was an IT error. Sure something went wrong and sure United, by and large, has crappy systems. However, there is no indication that this was a system error. Perhaps the person entering the data was the problem.
Besides, the pilots should have known that they didn't have an empty plane.
Besides, the pilots should have known that they didn't have an empty plane.
From the article:
“Earlier this year, we experienced technology issues in capturing correct passenger counts on a small number of our flights,” Megan McCarthy, a spokeswoman for the airline, said in an e-mail yesterday.
Aug 10, 2012, 8:43 pm
#6
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Honolulu, HI
Programs: UA 1K, HA Pualani
Posts: 110
20,000 lbs Overweighht
This probably has nothing to do with Shares, but an input error.
Yet, IT could prevent such issues by red flagging if there are 20 pax total on the plane, which this would probably be if coach was empty but you have 200 bags or proportionately more than the one bag per pax average or whatever it normally is. In this case, it might have been 10 bags per pax, which should raise a red flag and require another employee to investigate before a flight can be released.
In addition, common sense would have made me go back and look to verify, if I was sent paperwork showing 0 pax in E.
Yet, IT could prevent such issues by red flagging if there are 20 pax total on the plane, which this would probably be if coach was empty but you have 200 bags or proportionately more than the one bag per pax average or whatever it normally is. In this case, it might have been 10 bags per pax, which should raise a red flag and require another employee to investigate before a flight can be released.
In addition, common sense would have made me go back and look to verify, if I was sent paperwork showing 0 pax in E.
Aug 10, 2012, 8:43 pm
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,068
Aug 10, 2012, 9:09 pm
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SNA
Programs: UA Million Mile Nobody, Marriott Platinum Elite, SPG Gold
Posts: 25,228
Considering that it is possible that if weather conditions or winds had been unfavorable, this could have resulted in a major accident, someone needs to lose their job over this. Absolutely inexcusable. This is the kind of stuff you read about in the newspaper just below the list of dead passengers.
Aug 10, 2012, 10:21 pm
#11
Join Date: Sep 2008
Programs: UA 1k Million Miler
Posts: 355
The plane wasn't overweight just a poor trim setting. An issue but not that dangerous. The pilots don't get a pax count only weight and balance data which might be unusual but can't be checked by looking in the cabin.
Aug 10, 2012, 10:35 pm
#12
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tx
Programs: AA, UA, WN
Posts: 812
Unimatic stikes again! (remember the article states PSS and Maintenance software not weight and balance system which is PMUA owned)
But all in all sounds like input error in combination with pilot error as they are given passenger count before door is closed.
But all in all sounds like input error in combination with pilot error as they are given passenger count before door is closed.
Aug 10, 2012, 11:21 pm
#13
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: out my front door 60 min prior to IAH flight until they increased the check in time to 45 min
Programs: CO Platinum or UA 1K for so long, now almost 2MM
Posts: 322
dunno but "had difficulty getting the jetliner airborne" sounds dangerous to me
Aug 10, 2012, 11:55 pm
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,439
Aug 11, 2012, 1:37 am
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Benicia, California, USA
Programs: AA PLT,AS,UA PP,J6,FB,EY,LH,SQ,HH Dmd,Hyatt Glbl,Marriott Plat,IHG Plat,Accor Gold
Posts: 10,820
Are you serious???