Standard Weights for Baggage

[Flyit Pointit Sortit]

Looking over a loadsheet the other day, I noticed that I was carrying 130 bags on an international flight.

Legally enough they were loaded as 13 kilos standard weight. However, my airline has a 20kg baggage allowance?? When using my staff travel once, I had to pay an excess baggage charge however this was not reflected on the load sheet.

I don't see people traveling with much less than 20 kg but often see them travelling with more! Assume that everyone uses the company allowance of 20kg, 7kg over standard. At 130 bags that is 910 kg extra when we are operating within 100 - 200kg of MTOW.

We are also told that 3-4% of any extra fuel we carry is burned off per hour just to carry it. Are we therefore being short changed with our fuel figures?

It's a minor point but I just don't understand why this difference exists between the baggage allowance amount and the loadsheet standard weights??

For the record, I don't think the 93 and 75 kilos are still relevant and I'm sometimes amazed that we get airborne at all but at least we don't have a weight limit or indeed weigh the pax at check in.

any views??

FPS

[Maude Charlee]

The Captain is under no obligation whatsoever to accept any loadsheet using standard masses for pax or baggage, if he/she believes that it is incorrect. It is perfectly acceptable to make any reasonable adjustment to the figures if you believe that pax and/or baggage are substantially different to the standard masses given.

I agree with the general argument you make however regarding baggage allowance - most pax seem to see this as a minimum target weight which must be achieved or exceeded, and especially so if they think they can avoid an excess baggage charge. 'Unlimited' carry on baggage is another bone of contention.

[Dropline]

When producing loadsheets the weights we use for pax and baggage are determined by the airline. Scheduled airlines are more likely to use actual baggage weights for the loadsheet, whereas charters tend to use notional weights. The standard passenger weights vary from airline to airline, but so far I don't think anyone has tried using actual passenger weights! I pity the poor check in staff if that does ever happen!

On a charter flight 13kgs is generally used for short haul, and 15kgs for mid and long haul. Yet you only have to look at the number of bags coming out with "heavy" tags (ie over 23kgs) to see that these "standard" weights are far too low.

Immediately after the foiled terrorist plots in August 2006, when hand luggage was limited to travel documents only, some of the charters we handle switched to actual bag weights for a short period to reflect the additional luggage being checked into the hold. All of a sudden we found more flights were going overweight!!!

Personally I would always rather use actual bag weights instead of notional weights, as it makes for a more accurate loadsheet, but it's the airline that makes that decision. With the rise in the number of people being classed as overweight or obese these days, the standard pax weights could probably do with an update as well!!!

If you were to change a loadsheet, short of getting some scales and weighing the passengers and their baggage, how would you work out what adjustment to make?

This is a very grey area, and I too have no idea why the baggage allowance differs from the notional weight used on the loadsheet!

[plumponpies]

I suspect there is "fat" in the system. Eg: If standard baggage weights are used then standard pax weights will be used, 76Kg per adult 35KG for kids etc.
With a good mix of male, female and kids,the traffic load should balance out.
Unless its a full ship of Bloaters!!....Then actual weights may be necassary.

[Pinkman]

What scares me is the new BA hand baggage weights under the two bag rule introduced on Jan 7th...and I quote:

"A maximum hand baggage weight of 23Kg applies and customers must able to lift the bag into the overhead lockers in the aircraft cabin unaided"

Twenty three Kilos? Are they serious? Have you tried lifting fifty pounds above your head? Someone is going to get hurt.. and what about the structural integrity of the overhead locker?

Pinkman

[757_Driver]

there's no fat in standard adult weights! (literally)
The standard male weight on my load forms for chartered is 83kg.
I'm fit, run 3 times a week and have a Body Mass index right in the middle of the recomended band - my weight is 75 kg. That leaves 8kg for clothes, shoes, coats and cabin baggage.
Given that I am devinately in the bottom 1/2 of the population Body Mass index wise, and probably somewhere in the bottom 1/4, then I think you will find that the 'average' male on a flight, fully clothed, carrying hand baggage would tip the scales considerably over the 83kg allowance.

I have actually been weighed as a Pax once -on a flight from Orkneys to Aberdeen!

[john_tullamarine]

It is normal for standard weights to be based on periodically updated statistics .. eg, the old 170lb per body weight comes from a US study based on the US Army (as I recall) and conducted quite some decades ago ... likewise, subsequent studies have varied the standard weights according to country and typical passenger group. For instance, Australian standard data was updated some years ago following a quite extensive population study done by CASA (John Klingberg's good work) using available medical data in the public domain.

The same consideration applies to baggage weights.

Now, as to whether the tables are applied routinely and appropriately .. that is a matter for others to assess.

[BelArgUSA]

I dont know if your concern is paperwork accuracy or flight safety concern.
xxx
No matter what "airline standard loads" and "baggage loads" are, while my F/O put kgs and grams together on the paperwork, and crosses the Ts and puts dots on the Is... I make a mental computation, extremely simple...
xxx
Every passenger that travels aboard accounts for 100 kg increase in payload. That is the passenger AND baggage. If I have 363 passengers, my payload is (taking an advanced computer) 36,300 kg.
xxx
A few minutes later, the F/O will make me sign a paper, probably showing some 35,000 or 37,000 kg payload... I do not think the plane, at least my 747 knows the difference, unless of course you fly a HP Jetstream.
xxx
As far as pitch trim setting, same thing happens. With a standard passenger 747, knowing a takeoff weight, I know where the trim setting is. If the takeoff weight is 325,000 kg, the pitch trim is probably 6.5 units. (I just multiply 3.25 x 2, to get 6.5 units). My F/O will take 5 minutes to get a number, possibly 6.8 units... I swear to you, 6.5 or 6.8 feels the same on takeoff. And my eyes cannot see the difference on the trim indicator.
xxx
The only time I do long-hand computations is when mother-in-law is aboard... she weighs 200 kgs.
xxx
Of course, for nerds+geeks of the XXIst century, complicating things brings accuracy...
Takes a lot of thawing for these ATPLs just out of the deep-freezer.
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[perkin]

Please excuse my ignorance as lowly SLF, but I'm absolutely astouded that 'standard' weights are used for the load sheet as every piece of checked luggage is weighed at check-in anyway...why not just use actual weights?! Would it not be possible to end up with a rather out of trim a/c using this method with standard weights?

[john_tullamarine]

Would it not be possible to end up with a rather out of trim ...

well ... yes .. and no.

The reality is that, providing

(a) the stats are based on a reasonable and appropriate population

(b) the sample size in use is reasonable

the use of standard weights works out to be pretty close to the mark.

The above caveats relate to the following concerns ..

(a) it is very much a case of horses for courses. If the standard weights you propose to use relate to studies of relevant passengers, the weights will be OK .. ie, the standard weights appropriate to a plane load of little old church ladies out for a Sunday afternoon flight wouldn't suit a plane load of sumo wrestlers all that well ...)

(b) while there is variation in weight from passenger to passenger, this tends only to be significant for small numbers of passengers. Thus, use of standard weights on a six-seater tourer represents a much bigger problem than on a 747 .. as these variations tend to cancel out with the larger sample size. It is for this reason that sensible standard weights will be a little higher for smaller aircraft than larger so that the variation is less likely to catch the loading out unconservatively.

every piece of checked luggage is weighed at check-in anyway

.. but is that for loading calculations ? ... or excess baggage revenue ? On a less jocular note, transcribing a bunch of scale data on tight turnaround short haul flying can present a problem ..

Overall, use of standard weights does not present a problem .. providing that the basis for, and implementation of, those standard weights is appropriate.

[Mike773]

And that's not to say that every airline uses these standard weights. The 747s I dispatch (and do the W&B for) definitely don't. We weigh all the baggage at check-in and know the actual gross weight of all the cargo. So, the only "guesswork" is:
1) The "standard" pax weight of 160lbs which includes cabin baggage
2) The standard pantry weight is used based on the config
3) Distribution of baggage weight is based on how full each container is. The average checked-in bag weight is used to calculate the weight of each container. The actual weight of the container is not measured.

Although with the AAA baggage system I suppose it's possible these days to know how much each container actual weighs since you know (in theory) which container contains which bags. Although for a 747, I doubt it makes a hell of a lot of difference.

Can't speak for any smaller aircraft though....

[john_tullamarine]

Keep in mind, also, that the folk designing the loading system will (or should) have done an error analysis so that the reasonably likely errors will be constrained/accounted so that the actual loaded aircraft remains within the AFM limits ... in spite of the influence of actual errors ....

[Mike773]

Does that include sloppy finger work by W&B agents? (Excluding myself of course....:})

[Kiwiguy]

When I was a baggage handler a few years back at Air NZ we weighed every barrow of bags at the baggage hall for their actual weight and so in that airline they do not use a notional weight.

The interesting thing I noticed was that dispatchers seemed to get their weights from the check in counters and loading foremen used to get it from the baggage hall weights.

The weights were compared, but there were often differences.

[Mike773]

Hi Kiwiguy

Was this for domestic "bulk loading" flights? AFAIK, the international stuff at SYD (and AKL for that matter) goes straight into a can and the can doesn't get weighed.

I often wonder about the accuracy of the check-in scale though, as in my experience as a pax the check-in agent often doesn't zero the scale...

[Kiwiguy]

Nope I stopped throwing bags before the A320 came along and we rarely got 767s in my time at WLG. This was all domestic 733s.

Oh scuse me ... PS: we loaded international 733s too, including Skippys with their useless rollerbed floors.

Jetconnect had a bunch of clapped out ex Ansett Australia 733s. Their underskins were scalloped between the airfreme ribs so that they looked like they had skin ripples from the wing root backwards.

Seem to recall (later in 2006) that a Skippy 733 landed heavily at WLG and split the fuselage along the floor so you could see light through it. That was hushed up. There was also a funny incident in Feb/Mar 2002 when a catering truck lifted a skippy door off it's hinges. It was taped ove with duct tape and discreetly towed out of sight.

2.5 million dollar loss of revenue. LSG Sky Chef blamed their employees and sacked one. Later the GM at WLG for Sky Chef admitted unwittingly to the union that the truck had a known fault with the truck's controls, but the airline never heard about it and both union and caterers kept it quiet from Qantas.

[744rules]

where I work it depends on the airlines policy. If the airline uses actual weights, all bags are weighed (both bulk or containerized). If the airline uses standard weights, all bags are counted.

As for the accuracy. It sometimes depends on good judgment. If you see you load heavy samonites or very light attache cases it might be a good idea to use either te reported bagfigures from the ramp or the figures you get from the checkin-system.

Large discrepancies between rampnumbers and checkin-numbers might indicate that you are still missing carts or containers still at the bag sorting area

[deltayankee]

On flights with many business travellers you also need to think about the extra weight of laptops, batteries, multiple phones, digital cameras, loose change in several currencies and so on. This is umpteen kilos of stuff per person that didn't exist twenty years ago. Beats me how the overhead bins don't collapse on people's heads during sporty landings.

And weighing hand baggage is a waste of time because seasoned travellers transfer all the heavy stuff to their pockets or hands until after the weigh in.

But they can weight loaded trucks just by driving them over a special bridge. Couldn't they equip the airport with something that actually weighs the loaded A/C? Wouldn't this avoid doing a lot of hard sums?

[Mike773]

The 747 at least (because it's the only a/c I know in detail) does display the gross weight in the cockpit. What it doesn't show is the distribution, i.e. CG.

[BelArgUSA]

Standard weights for baggage - You make me laugh...
Every airline, every airport, every agent, do different. I will give you an idea.
xxx
Imagine a busy airport, summer vacations season, somewhere in Europe.
Some 300 passengers to travel. One agent is missing for check-in, so the two other agents are seriously busy. Baggage limit is... 20 kg.
xxx
Check-in procedures, usual stupid questions by passengers i.e. "is the plane on time" (check-in agent not dispatcher, sorry) or "oh yes, my wife's passport, it was here in my bag, let me see, oh no, must be in her bag" etc. etc. Now, comes the weight of the bags...
xxx
Limit 20 kg we said... that piece is 22.5 kgs... Is it worth (to the agent's own opinion) the time to generate a baggage supplement ticket for 2.5 kgs, and spend 3 extra minutes doing it. So, the baggage is "weighed" at 20 kg... And same story for the next passengers, with pieces of 21 to 25.7 kgs. So the paperwork will show 450 pieces of baggage with some 10 to 15% error. So, the "accurate paperork" of "weighed baggage" is not accurate. It just reflects check-in agents willingness to simplify their job (or soon they will go on strike) or delay the departure for adequate overweight billing documents.
xxx
Other situation. Here we are in the Middle East, in the very holy area of the desert shrine where pilgrims have obligation to go to at least once in their life (I shall not mention where, for political correctness). Now we deal with 500 pax to travel to a distant point in Africa, or maybe to South Asia...
xxx
The passengers present theirselves with 10 kg stereos, 25 kg microwaves, or 30 kg televisions (if not a 100 kg refrigerator - I saw that) as their "cabin baggage", all this with their 25 kg of "holy water" jerrycans. But who says Middle East - also means inherent "little business" for the passengers and agents. We all know that the once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage is for prayers, and not for shopping...
xxx
The conversation leads to this. Passenger has 200 kg of baggage extra, so, lots of dollars. But all is negotiable in the Middle East, as when you go buying a carpet. So the passenger and agent "negotiate" the extra fees. The agent reduces the "200 kg overweight to 100 kg". All this with a little "commission" for the agent (his salary is miserable). So the paperwork (which must be reflecting the extra charges received by the agent) "converts" the 200 kg into 100 kg of baggage. That is the "accurate" weight, that you pilot, will receive.
xxx
The "weight and balance indexing system" mentioned here above by Mike773 does indeed exist. I remember once on these flights, such system showing us some 15,000 kg extra weight for the aircraft ramp weight, compared to the "accurate paperwork" presented for baggage we had. Great piece of fiction indeed.
xxx
I know another thing. An airplane flight planning showing 75,000 kg fuel burnoff, but actual burnoff on arrival happens to be 80,000 kg. It is not because I have poor climb/cruise techniques as pilot. I am average, as anyone is (except you, being better than me). Such a burnoff, tells me that the airplane is seriously overweight. I could play the game in entering the burnoff chart backwards and find what the actual aircraft weight was. And why is it that the plane is in dire need of vitamins when climbing from FL310 to 350...
xxx
I am an old fart yes... but dont pull my leg. I know the music and dance.
You are an idiot to believe that all is like in the pilot academy or as shown on traffic paperwork.
As accurate as your TAF that gives your destination CAVOK, but when you arrive, the RVR is 400 meters.
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[radvan]

From what I've seen, the main reason computer systems (DCS , baggage management ) are asked to provide actual bag weights is so that the cargo dept. can send over enough freight to fill the aircraft to capacity. Or, if its already at the stand, how much of it can actually get loaded.
Interestingly, this implies that using standard pax & bag wts may - on average - err on the high side...

[fireflybob]

Years ago when flying with ExCalibur on the A320 we were getting check gross weight messages on the FMGC and the fuel burn was a few % above the book.

We were using assumed weights for hold baggage so we decided to start weighing the hold baggage (and incidentally on flight to FNC we weighed cabin bags too). This showed we were often heavier than we had previously thought. We never got anymore FMGC messages and the fuel burns were almost exactly as advertised.

As and aside it seems quite amazing in this day and age of modern technology that we do not have an accurate system on the aircraft which tells us what the actual weight is and where the c.g. is located.