Please let me begin by offering my apologies for our part in the confusion and inconvenienced caused. I wasn’t initially aware of the issue until Mary’s email yesterday, and have since been able to fully investigate what occurred. The following investigation offers some additional details into our involvement in the accumulation of errors and the corrective actions we have implemented to help avoid any reoccurrence.
Summary:
1. On TG491/24JUN and TG491/25JUN, BKK manifested 499 pieces for AWB 217-5480 5682, but actually loaded 544 pieces
2. On acceptance and delivery in AKL, MA has failed to identify the 45 extra pieces not manifested
3. Tracing continued until 30JUN when TG was notified that the full shipment had already been delivered to the agent/consignee
Investigation:
4. A total of 499 pieces were manifested to AKL on AWB 217-5480 5682
5. 210 pieces were manifested in AFL80194TG and another 97 pieces in the bulk on TG491/24JUN
6. A further 192 pieces were manifested on PLA70409TG on TG491/25JUN
7. Menzies Aviation (MA) accepted on 24JUN at 11:50 a total of 210 pieces from ALF80194TG and 97 pieces from the bulk. No discrepancies in the count was identified
8. The following day on 25JUN at 12:15 a further 192 pieces were accepted from PLA70409TG. Again, no discrepancies in the count were identified
Note: two separate MA operators accepted the freight on each day. The investigation was unable to verify on which day the discrepancy occurred
9. At 14:48 on 25JUN all 499 pieces were delivered to the agent in lots of 21, 189, 97 and 192 pieces. The two MA operators delivering the freight failed to identify any discrepancy in the number of pieces being released
10. MA employees a third part operator to double check freight being delivered to help ensure only the correct cargo and correct number of pieces are delivered. The third party operator has failed to identify any discrepancies in the number of pieces being delivered
11. The cargo was delivered to the agent across three separate vehicles. The agents drivers are also required to count the cargo as the freight is loaded on the vehicle. Neither driver identified any discrepancy in the pieces being loaded. Both release notes were sign by the agents driver indicating they accepted only 499 pieces
12. The investigation has found that it is common practice to load multiple vehicles across a single release note or control ticket. This means the freight ‘release time’ does not accurately indicate the try time of release or when each part is loaded onto individual vehicles. It also means a proper count on deliver cannot be accurately completed. The correct process is to record the actual number of pieces loaded onto a truck then close the original ticket. The next driver then needs to create a new control ticket for the next part of the shipment
13. On 25JUN a full bond check was performed to help confirm if the extra 45 pieces missing from BKK could be located in MEL. The bound check found nil excess cargo
Note: part of the shipment had already been released at the time the bond check had been completed
14. Also on 25JUN the TG AKL cargo manager counted the remaining 192 pieces that remained in the MA shed. When the figure on hand was compared to what the agent said they had already received, no discrepancies were identified
15. On 30JUN MA received the below email from TG notifying us that the missing 45 pieces had been found in the agents/consignees possession
Findings:
16. Only 499 pieces were originally manifest ex-BKK. The investigation discovered 544 was actually loaded
17. The MA operator accepting freight on either or both TG491/24JUN and/or TG491/25JUN has failed to identify the additional 45 pieces of cargo that weren’t manifested. The investigation was unable to determine which operator
18. The two MA operators that delivered the freight to the agent have failed to identify any discrepancy in the number of pieces being delivered. The investigation was unable to identify which operator failed to make the correct count
19. MA process meant the cargo had been released prior to all the cargo being loaded onto the agents trucks to enable the agent to use a single control ticket. This made keeping track of the correct count difficult
20. The third party operator has failed to identify any discrepancy in the number of pieces being delivered
21. The agents drivers failed to count and identify any discrepancy in the number of pieces being loaded
22. In an effort to trace the missing freight, when the count performed on the remaining cargo at the MA shed was compared to what the agent said was already received at their warehouse, no discrepancy was found
MA Corrective Action:
23. I have personally briefed the MA loading staff on the incident and strongly reinforced the need to follow correct procedures when counting freight on acceptance and delivery. I briefing register has been taken. A staff read and sign will be created.
24. I have also spoken to the individuals involved in the handling of the freight and disciplinary action will be taken.
25. We will organise a meeting with the third part service provider to ensure their staff are counting and checking freight being delivered correctly
26. A new staff instruction will be created to instruct delivery staff to close vehicle control tickets and create a new ticket after each individual vehicle. Shift supervisors have already been briefed and instructed staff to commence this process with immediate effect.
I hope this investigation has been able to give some additional insight into our handling and that you are satisfied with the corrective actions introduced.
If you require any additional information, please let me know.