Regulations & Safety
ATSB Finds Data Entry Error Caused Safety Risk on Qantas 737 Flight
ATSB report details how a data-entry error led to a Qantas 737-800 departing Canberra overweight, highlighting system and communication failures.
A seemingly minor data-entry mistake by ground staff initiated a complex chain of errors that resulted in a Qantas Boeing 737-800 taking off from Canberra significantly heavier than its flight crew believed. According to a final report released by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) regarding the December 1, 2024 incident, the Commercial-Aircraft departed with incorrect performance calculations, creating a genuine Safety risk that was only mitigated by the pilots’ conservative decision-making.
The incident highlights the fragility of automated safety systems when human operators are under pressure. As reported by ABC News and detailed in the ATSB findings, the error caused the flight management computer to calculate takeoff speeds that were too slow for the aircraft’s actual weight, increasing the potential for a tailstrike or runway overrun.
The sequence of events began when a Qantas staff member in Canberra, reportedly working under high pressure due to weather-related diversions, accessed the flight planning system. According to the ATSB report, the employee inadvertently entered the aircraft code for a Boeing 717, a smaller 125-seat jet, instead of the correct Boeing 737-800, which seats 164 passengers.
While the staff member realized the mistake and corrected the aircraft type code back to a 737, they failed to notice a critical automated consequence of the initial error. When the system briefly thought the flight was a smaller Boeing 717, it automatically “offloaded” 51 passengers (11 Business Class and 40 Economy) to align with the smaller jet’s capacity. When the code was corrected, the system did not automatically re-add these passengers.
Because the 51 passengers were missing from the digital manifest, the final loadsheet issued to the pilots was inaccurate. The ATSB investigation revealed the following discrepancies:
The ATSB described the incident as a failure of the safety system to catch the initial slip, citing “cascading” errors that bypassed multiple layers of defense. Although the initial input was a human error, the subsequent failure to rectify it involved broken chains of communication.
According to the investigation, a Load Control Manager eventually noticed the discrepancy in the system and attempted to contact the pilots via mobile phone, but the call went unanswered. The issue was then escalated to Movement Control, who attempted to radio the crew. However, the pilots had deselected the radio to focus on pre-flight data entry, a standard procedure designed to minimize distractions in the cockpit.
In a final attempt to reach the crew, Movement Control radioed the Gate Agent to pass the urgent message. This action breached standard procedure, which requires direct liaison with the flight crew for critical load errors. Consequently, the message never reached the pilots before the aircraft began its takeoff roll.
Despite the incorrect data, the flight departed safely. The ATSB credited the pilots’ conservative approach to performance planning for preventing a more serious outcome. Rather than utilizing a shorter intersection departure or applying a “headwind credit”, which allows for higher weights or lower speeds based on wind conditions, the crew elected to use the full length of the runway. Dr. Stuart Godley, Director of Transport Safety at the ATSB, noted the importance of these decisions in the official report:
“Fortunately, the flight crew elected to use the full length of the runway… which added an increased safety margin.”
The crew only discovered the error after the aircraft was airborne.
This incident serves as a textbook example of “automation surprise” or bias. When the ground staff member corrected the aircraft type from 717 back to 737, they likely assumed the computer would “undo” all associated changes, including the removal of passengers. This psychological reliance on system logic can be dangerous when software is designed to be conservative (offloading passengers to prevent overbooking) but not restorative.
Furthermore, the “high workload” environment cited in the report underscores a persistent industry challenge. When staff are saturated with tasks, in this case, managing weather diversions, their ability to cross-check automated outputs diminishes. The failure here was not just individual, but systemic, as the software provided no clear warning that the passenger count had been drastically altered following the code correction.
Qantas has acknowledged the findings and accepted the ATSB’s conclusions. In response to the incident, the Airlines has implemented new safety protocols to prevent recurrence. According to the report, airport staff are now required to conduct a manual headcount whenever passenger numbers in the system do not match expected figures, ensuring physical verification before a flight is closed.
Dr. Godley emphasized the broader lesson for the Aviation industry:
“The occurrence demonstrated how a small error can cascade when unusual situations are not proactively identified, addressed, or escalated by those involved in a safety system.”
Was the flight ever in immediate danger of crashing? How common are data-entry errors in aviation? What happened to the staff member involved?
ATSB Report: Data Entry Error Triggered “Cascading” Safety Risks on Qantas 737 Flight
The Trigger: A Case of Mistaken Identity
Weight and Performance Discrepancies
Communication Breakdowns and Missed Opportunities
Safety Outcome and Pilot Actions
AirPro News Analysis: The Danger of Automation Bias
Qantas Response and Procedural Changes
Frequently Asked Questions
While the risk was elevated due to incorrect speeds, the ATSB noted that the pilots’ decision to use the full runway length provided a sufficient safety buffer. Had they used a shorter intersection or less conservative settings, the risk of a tailstrike or runway overrun would have been significantly higher.
Data-entry errors are a known hazard. Similar incidents have occurred in the past, including a 2014 Qantas flight where children were assigned adult weights, and a 2009 Emirates incident in Melbourne where an incorrect weight entry led to a severe tailstrike.
The report focuses on systemic improvements rather than individual punishment. It highlights that the staff member was working under high pressure due to weather disruptions, which is a known human factor in safety incidents.
Sources
Photo Credit: A Periam Photography – Shutterstock
Regulations & Safety
Stolen Cessna 172 Crashes into Hangar at Van Nuys Airport
A stolen Cessna 172 crashed into a hangar at Van Nuys Airport. Suspect arrested; FAA and FBI investigate security breach at busy general aviation airport.
This article summarizes reporting by NBC Los Angeles and Jonathan Lloyd.
A security breach at Van Nuys Airports (VNY) early Thursday morning resulted in the theft and subsequent crash of a single-engine aircraft. According to reporting by NBC Los Angeles, a suspect broke into a flight school facility and attempted to commandeer a Cessna 172 before crashing the plane into a nearby hangar building. Authorities have confirmed that the aircraft never successfully became airborne.
Law enforcement officials, including the Los Angeles Airport Police (LAXPD) and the FBI, responded immediately to the scene. The suspect was taken into custody without incident, and no injuries were reported on the ground or in the aircraft. The incident has prompted a federal investigation into the security protocols at one of the world’s busiest general aviation airports.
The incident began in the pre-dawn hours of December 18, 2025. According to a timeline compiled from reports by NBC4 and KTLA, the suspect trespassed onto the airport grounds around 4:00 AM. The individual targeted a flight training facility located near the 7900 block of Balboa Boulevard, an area densely populated with Commercial-Aircraft academies and hangars.
After gaining access to the flight school, the suspect boarded a white single-engine Cessna 172. Around 5:00 AM, the suspect attempted to operate the aircraft. NBC Los Angeles reports that the plane was stolen directly from the flight school’s ramp.
“A small plane crashed in a building at Van Nuys Airport after it was stolen from a flight school, officials tell NBC4 Investigates.”
— NBC Los Angeles
While the suspect managed to start the engine and begin taxiing, they lost control of the aircraft before reaching a runway. The plane surged forward and impacted a hangar nose-first. Aerial video footage broadcast by KTLA showed the aircraft’s nose embedded in the metal siding of the structure, leaving a distinct hole in the exterior wall. The propeller and nose cone sustained significant damage, rendering the aircraft inoperable.
Following the crash, LAXPD officers arrested the suspect at the scene. CBS Los Angeles and other local outlets have identified the individual as 37-year-old Ceffareno Michael Logan. He was booked on suspicion of burglary and theft of an aircraft. According to verified reports from Patch and NTD News, bail for Logan has been set at $150,000. As of the latest updates, authorities have not disclosed a motive for the theft, nor have they confirmed whether the suspect possessed any prior flight training or a pilot’s license. The swift arrival of law enforcement prevented any further attempts to move the aircraft or flee the scene.
The investigation has expanded beyond local police to include federal agencies. Both the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are on-site to assist LAXPD. Their inquiry will likely focus on how the suspect breached the perimeter and accessed the aircraft keys or ignition system.
Crews were observed later in the morning extracting the damaged Cessna from the hangar wall and towing it back to the flight academy’s facility. Despite the dramatic nature of the event, airport operations at Van Nuys were not significantly disrupted, as the crash was contained within the flight school’s specific ramp area.
While commercial airports operate under the strict passenger screening protocols of the TSA, general aviation (GA) airports like Van Nuys face different security challenges. VNY is a massive facility with multiple access points for Private-Jets businesses, hangars, and flight schools. This incident highlights the vulnerability of “insider” areas where aircraft are parked.
Although rare, the theft of aircraft is a known risk in the aviation industry. In 2018, a ground service agent stole a Q400 turboprop from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, a tragedy that ended in a fatal crash. Fortunately, in this instance at Van Nuys, the suspect failed to achieve flight, preventing a potentially catastrophic outcome over the densely populated San Fernando Valley. We anticipate this event will trigger a review of after-hours key storage and perimeter security standards for flight schools operating at VNY.
Stolen Cessna 172 Crashes into Hangar at Van Nuys Airport
Timeline of the Theft and Crash
The Break-in and Attempted Taxi
Suspect and Legal Proceedings
Investigation and Aftermath
AirPro News Analysis: General Aviation Security
Sources
Photo Credit: KTLA5
Regulations & Safety
US Government Admits Liability in 2025 Washington DC Mid-Air Collision
The U.S. government admits fault in the 2025 mid-air collision near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport that killed 67, citing FAA and Army errors.
This article summarizes reporting by AP News.
In a significant legal development following the deadliest United States aviation accident since 2001, the U.S. government has formally admitted liability for the mid-air collision that claimed 67 lives earlier this year. According to court filings submitted in December 2025, the Department of Justice acknowledged that negligence by both Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic controllers and U.S. Army pilots caused the tragedy.
The crash, which occurred on January 29, 2025, involved American Eagle Flight 5342 and a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter operating near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). As reported by AP News, the government’s admission comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the family of a victim, signaling a potential shift in how the remaining legal battles regarding the disaster will proceed.
The lawsuit, filed by the family of passenger Casey Crafton, alleges that failures in communication and protocol led directly to the catastrophe. In a move that legal experts describe as unusually swift for complex aviation litigation, the government did not contest its role in the accident.
In the filing, the government stated that it:
“owed a duty of care to plaintiffs, which it breached.”
, U.S. Department of Justice filing, via AP News
By admitting liability, the government effectively removes the need for a trial to determine fault regarding its own agents (the FAA and the Army). The legal focus will likely shift toward determining the amount of damages owed to the families of the 64 people on the regional jet and the three crew members on the helicopter.
The collision occurred at night while the American Eagle CRJ700, operated by PSA Airlines, was on approach to DCA from Wichita, Kansas. The Black Hawk helicopter was conducting a training mission involving night vision goggles. Investigations cited by AP News and preliminary NTSB data highlight two primary causes for the disaster: air traffic control errors and pilot deviations. According to the reports, the FAA controller at DCA utilized “visual separation” procedures, asking the helicopter pilots if they had the incoming jet in sight. Once the pilots confirmed they did, the controller transferred the responsibility for maintaining safe distance to the helicopter crew. Following the incident, the FAA has reportedly restricted the use of visual separation for helicopters operating in this congested airspace.
The government’s admission also encompasses errors made by the Army flight crew. Investigators found that the helicopter was flying significantly higher than permitted for its specific route. While the limit for “Route 4” was 200 feet, the Black Hawk was operating between 278 and 300 feet, approximately 78 feet above the ceiling for that corridor.
Furthermore, technical discrepancies were noted in the helicopter’s equipment. The investigation revealed that the barometric altimeter may have displayed an altitude 80 to 100 feet lower than the aircraft’s actual position, potentially misleading the pilots. The use of night vision goggles was also cited as a factor that may have limited the crew’s peripheral vision and depth perception.
The speed at which the U.S. government admitted liability, less than a year after the incident, is notable. In many aviation disasters involving state actors, litigation can drag on for years over jurisdictional and immunity claims. We assess that this early admission is likely a strategic decision to limit the scope of discovery. By conceding fault now, the government may prevent a prolonged public trial that would expose granular, potentially sensitive details regarding military training operations and air traffic control systemic vulnerabilities in the nation’s capital.
While the government has accepted its share of the blame, the legal battle continues for the private carriers involved. American Airlines and its regional subsidiary, PSA Airlines, are also named defendants in the lawsuit. Both airlines have filed motions to dismiss the complaints against them, arguing that the sole responsibility lies with the government entities that controlled the airspace and the military aircraft.
Attorneys for the victims’ families, however, argue that the airlines failed to mitigate known risks associated with flying into the highly congested airspace around Washington, D.C. The outcome of these motions will determine whether the airlines must also pay damages or if the U.S. taxpayers will bear the full financial burden of the settlements.
When is the final NTSB report expected? What safety changes have been made since the crash? How many people died in the accident?
US Government Admits Liability in Fatal Collision Between American Eagle Jet and Army Helicopter
Government Concedes Negligence in Court Filing
Operational Failures Behind the Crash
FAA Controller Errors
Army Pilot Deviations
AirPro News Analysis
Ongoing Legal Disputes with Airlines
Frequently Asked Questions
The National Transportation Safety Board is expected to release its final report on the probable cause of the accident in early 2026.
The FAA has permanently closed the specific helicopter route (Route 4) involved in the crash. Additionally, regulators have prohibited the simultaneous use of certain runways at DCA during urgent helicopter missions and restricted visual separation procedures for helicopters.
The crash resulted in 67 total fatalities: 60 passengers and 4 crew members on the regional jet, and 3 crew members on the Army helicopter.
Sources
Photo Credit: NBC News
Regulations & Safety
Why Proper Maintenance of Aircraft Wheel Bearings Is Critical for Safety
Airbus technical data shows aircraft wheel bearing failures result mainly from maintenance errors. Proper torque, cleaning, and lubrication are essential for safety.
This article is based on technical guidance and safety publications from Airbus and additional industry safety reports.
Aircraft wheel bearings are among the most stressed components in aviation. Despite supporting loads of up to 500 tons and enduring temperature shifts from sub-zero cruising altitudes to the intense heat of braking, they remain largely hidden from view. According to a technical safety publication by Airbus, the failure of these components is rarely due to design flaws but is almost exclusively the result of improper maintenance.
At AirPro News, we have reviewed the latest guidance from Airbus’s “Safety First” initiative, alongside broader industry data, to understand why these small components continue to pose significant risks to flight safety. The consensus across manufacturers and regulators is clear: strict adherence to maintenance protocols is the only barrier against catastrophic failure.
The primary cause of bearing failure, as identified by Airbus and industry data, is maintenance error. Specifically, the issues revolve around incorrect torque application, contamination, and inadequate lubrication. Aircraft use “tapered roller bearings” designed to handle both the weight of the aircraft (radial loads) and side-to-side movement (axial loads). When these bearings are mistreated, the consequences are severe.
One of the most critical and frequently misunderstood aspects of wheel installation is the torque procedure. According to Airbus technical guidelines, a specific “double-torque” method is required to ensure the bearings are seated correctly without being overtightened.
The process generally involves three distinct steps:
The risk lies in the details. If a technician skips rotating the wheel during the initial torque application, the rollers may not align, leading to a false torque reading. This can result in loose bearings that vibrate and wear prematurely, or tight bearings that overheat and seize.
The failure of a wheel bearing is not merely a maintenance inconvenience; it is a direct threat to the structural integrity of the aircraft. When a bearing seizes, it can generate enough friction to weld components together or shear axles, leading to wheel separation.
In one notable case study highlighted by Airbus, an A330 aircraft lost a wheel during takeoff. The investigation revealed that a seized bearing destroyed the axle nut, allowing the wheel to eject from the landing gear. This is not an isolated event. Data from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) underscores the prevalence of this issue. “A study revealed 67 occurrences of nosewheel bearing failures on A319/A320/A321 aircraft worldwide between 1989 and 2004.”
— TSB Canada Data
While the Airbus “Safety First” article focuses on their fleet, the physics of bearing failure applies universally. Reports from the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) detail an incident involving a Boeing 737-800 where a seized bearing generated sufficient heat to compromise the chrome plating and base metal of the axle, causing it to fracture.
Similarly, an investigation into an Embraer EMB-145 (registration G-EMBP) found that moisture contamination due to improper seal installation led to severe overheating and subsequent axle failure. These incidents confirm that regardless of the airframe manufacturer, the root causes, contamination and torque errors, remain consistent.
To mitigate these risks, manufacturers and technical organizations like Timken have established “gold standard” maintenance manuals. The following practices are considered non-negotiable for airworthiness:
The Human Factor in Maintenance
While the technical steps are well-documented, we believe the persistence of these failures points to a human factors challenge. Wheel bearings are “hidden” components; unlike a tire that shows visible tread wear, a bearing often looks pristine until the moment it fails catastrophically. This lack of visual feedback places an immense burden on the maintenance process itself.
In high-pressure line maintenance environments, the requirement to rotate a wheel while torquing it, a process that relies on “feel” and patience, can be a trap for technicians rushing to clear an aircraft for departure. The data suggests that safety in this domain relies less on new technology and more on a disciplined adherence to the basics: cleaning, inspecting, and respecting the torque procedure.
Regulators continue to monitor these risks closely. The FAA has previously issued Airworthiness Directives, such as AD 2012-10-09 for Cessna 560XL aircraft, following reports of brake failure linked to loose bearing components. Furthermore, the FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam) frequently issues alerts reminding operators that “grease is not just grease,” warning that using unapproved substitutes constitutes a violation of FAR Part 43.
Whether operating a General Aviation aircraft or a commercial airliner, the message from the industry is uniform: take care of the wheel bearings, and they will carry the load.
The Hidden Danger in the Gear: Why Wheel Bearing Maintenance Cannot Be Rushed
The Mechanics of Failure
The “Double-Torque” Procedure
Real-World Consequences
Airbus and TSB Canada Data
Cross-Fleet Vulnerabilities
Industry Best Practices
AirPro News Analysis
Regulatory Context
Sources
Photo Credit: Airbus
-
Commercial Aviation7 days agoAirbus Validates Critical Rendezvous Phase for Wake Energy Retrieval
-
Training & Certification7 days agoDiamond Aircraft Restarts European DA20i Production with First Delivery
-
Commercial Aviation6 days agoVietnam Grounds 28 Aircraft Amid Pratt & Whitney Engine Shortage
-
Business Aviation2 days agoGreg Biffle and Family Die in North Carolina Plane Crash
-
Defense & Military4 days agoFinland Unveils First F-35A Lightning II under HX Fighter Program