Weight Issues

[Jettson]

Be warned there are a couple of different questions in this rambling!:}

When I was doing my theory work I am pretty sure standard weights were based upon 77kg per adult male. Obviously in this day and age it would have to be increased. What are most companies using now?

Anyway, my issue is about having to pay for extra baggage. For example the company's baggage policy is 20kg. I weigh 70kg and have 30kg of baggage totalling 100kg. However someone who weighs 120kg with 20kg of bags totalling 140kg. I then have to pay extra $$ for my baggage while someone bringing on more total weight does not pay anything extra.

Am I therefore subsidising the cost of travel for larger people? Why do airlines care so much about your baggage being 1kg over weight when there is a chance your body weight would make a huge difference!:ugh:Excess baggage just for $$?

Final issue and this I direct to the jet jockeys. Obviously when working out MTOW in regards to people's weights you working on an average, with an accurate bag weight. Could an above heavy people load that you don't even know about put you significant above MTOW and affect performance? Does it worry you that you wouldn't even know that you have a very heavy load?

I ask this as from working in charter, we are weighing pax and bags and you notice the difference when you are pushing MTOW and never go over that figure. It seems that with the airlines you are just working on what could be an inaccurate average.

:confused::confused:

[Jettson]

by the way I am not having a go at fat people. Health and fit people can weigh 100kg+ like footballers

[tobzalp]

I don't know about heavy or light but I do know this thread made me more stupiderer.

[Fr8dog44]

I'm not sure of the differences between OZ and the US but....

Here in the US, when taking a theory exam, you need to take the exam from the academic position, or should I say, answer the questions the way the Gov wants them answered. Then there's the the real world! Here the Airlines operate under FAR Part 121 reg's and charter companies operate under FAR Part 135. These two sections of the reg's add to the general operating rules, then on top of that we have Operation Specifictions which add to our operating proceedures and limitations.

Yes, they specify we use 175 pounds as an average weight, also to add 5 pounds for winter clothing. They (the FAA) may then stipulate that actual weights be used as per Op's Spec's. Having flown small jets from Vegas with its heat and field elevation we had to use actual weights because performance here is critical. With jets, heat and field elevation are important. The Beechjet I flew had a GTOW of 16,300 pounds. Once the OAT reached 40C the GTOW is reduced to 15,500 pounds. THEN, higher field elevations would effect this even more with increased take-off rolls. We also use ZFW, Zero Fuel Weight. What this basically is the BOW + Payload minus fuel. The BeechJet's ZFW is 13,000 pounds. What does this mean? If you have a bunch of heavyweights AND they and their bags plus the BOW exceed ZFW, something or somebody gets bumped!

As far as charging PAX excess baggage fee's, that's something US aircarriers implimented to rape PAX even more. It's called greed! Bags ARE weighed and PAX are charged if over a specified weight. Also, US Air carriers often carry cargo for other companies including the US Postal service. They make tons of money doing this. So I'm guessing they do this to discourage PAX from carrying excess Bagg's to make room for Cargo and if the PAX do carry more bags, the Airline still makes their money!

With Fat People, if the CSR sees they're fat when checking in where they obviously take up 2 seats, they are now getting slammed with double fares.

Here's something to consider, it's not legal but fun to think about. Structuraly, your airplane should have an upper load capacity of about 3G's and a minus load capacity of -1.5 G's. This means that your wings are designed to handle 3 times the gross weight of the airplane! So if you;re over by a few K's it's usually not a problem, just be careful of your take-off rolls!!

[Monopole]

From the CAAPs

The use of one standard passenger weight for all aircraft can result in a high
probability of overloading.
7. The practice in Australia has been to use the same standard passenger weight,
irrespective of the size of the aircraft. However, this practice increases the probability of
overloading the aircraft as passenger capacity decreases, and vice versa.
8. For example, when a standard weight of 77 kg is used in a 12 passenger aircraft
instead of actual weights, the statistical probability of overloading the aircraft is as high
as 25%. This probability diminishes to 0.0014% if the same standard weight of 77 kg is
used on a very large capacity aircraft, such as a 400 passenger Boeing 747.


There is also a table of suggested standard weights (CAAP 235-1(1) based on seating capacity, to reduce the possibility of exceeding MTOW. Eg, 7-9 seats = 86kg for a male and 71kg for a female whereas 100-149 seat capacity = 82kg for a male and 66.9 for a female.

NOTE: The weights are suggested weights, not a legal requirement........

From the CARs

(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to take off if its gross weight exceeds its maximum take-off weight or, if a lesser weight determined in accordance with a direction under
subregulation (2) is applicable to the take-off, that lesser weight.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.


So if you are taking a charterd aircraft full of Rugby players, you would be very wise to weigh the passangers to get an actual weight.

tobzalp, maybe not not stupiderer, but lazy :ugh::ugh:

[18-Wheeler]

by the way I am not having a go at fat people. Health and fit people can weigh 100kg+ like footballers


Hmmmm .... I'm 108kg in shorts & a t-shirt - Fairly tall though.

[Jettson]

As the statistics say, there will be a time when it is overloaded. Guess everyone up the front just sits there dumb and happy. Hope its not too hot as well!

[Jettson]

Hmmmm .... I'm 108kg in shorts & a t-shirt - Fairly tall though.

Thats what I am saying. You dont have to be fat to be over 100kg.

[Mr. Hat]

There was a previous thread on this topic if you are interested.

There was a turbo prop accident in the US as a result of this if you are interested.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Being a fat bastard helps if you fly a V35B - keeps the CofG in the right place!

Dr :8

[Jettson]

Any links Mr Hat??

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Fat bastards should get a tax break for sequestering carbon!

Dr :8

[AerocatS2A]

As the statistics say, there will be a time when it is overloaded. Guess everyone up the front just sits there dumb and happy. Hope its not too hot as well!
The aircraft performance and loading system should be conservative enough that being slightly overweight does not have a significant effect on flight safety. Temperature is accounted for in take-off performance charts so shouldn't be an issue.

Ultimately it is ok to use average weights if the passenger load is made up of a normal selection of people. If the passengers obviously tend toward heavy such as when carrying a couple of rugby teams, every one should be weighed, but when you consider that the amount of fuel on board may be up to 3% out from what is recorded you'll realise that the whole system is not precise enough for one degree or a few hundred kilos to make much of a difference (assuming a large aircraft, obviously a few hundred kilos overweight in a C152 would be bad.)

[Grogmonster]

I have been reading this with interest. Using standard weights even the higher weights in the CAAPs in any aircraft smaller than say 20 seats is crazy. Take for instance a Metro doing a mining crew change. Do you really think the average weight of all those blokes is 87KG? I heard a Chieftain departing a regional centre today with 10 POB heading for Brisbane. Now the average Chieftain will provide about 1240 KGs of payload. To stay within the regs it would have had to carry at least 550 litres of fuel to make it in nil wind with VFR reserves which in very rough figures equates to 400 kg of fuel. So are you thinking that 10 pob weighs less than the balance of 840 kg. I think not.

Now lets start thinking about performance on one engine in an aircraft that is at least 200 - 250 kg overweight or if you like fast approaching 7-8% overloaded not to mention where the C of G might be or the fact that it is at least 30 years old with a very tired airframe. Do you really want to be a test pilot?

If you think that is an isolated case think again. I heard a very similarly loaded Chieftain leaving Birdsville for a destination that would have at the very minimum required full fuel, just a few days ago. These pilots are kidding themselves and it is only luck that saves their butts.

If you fly overloaded with your head up your @@@@ using standard weights as a defence you are an IDIOT!!!

Groggy

[Mr. Hat]

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/352888-weight-debate-paying-excess-bags-when-your-actual-body-weight-low.html

I started the thread - some were offended but my view was more to do with V speeds as I've been a crew member on flights where the standard weight wouldn't have worked so I elected to weigh people as you would expect. However not as easily done once you get onto the metros saabs 737's ect.

I don't really care if somone thats bigger than me pays the same. I do care if the v speeds aren't accurate.

[FGD135]

If you fly overloaded with your head up your @@@@ using standard weights as a defence you are an IDIOT!!!

You cannot claim "standard weights" as a defence if taking off overloaded!

The rules are very clear - they allow the estimation of passenger weights (via "standard weights") but expressly forbid taking off at a weight greater than the maximum takeoff weight for the aircraft or prevailing conditions.

[The PM]

What if you have the misfortune of being an UGLY FAT BASTARD ?

And yes, I am one.......

:{:{

[Monopole]

As the statistics say, there will be a time when it is overloaded. Guess everyone up the front just sits there dumb and happy
You just dont get it do you :ugh:
There needs to be a system of sorts, but this does not allow you to take off overload.

One company I worked for was required by CASA to weigh all their pax in a one month period and change their company 'standard weight' based on the average. The company I work for now uses 89kg when they could be using the 'suggested' 82kg.

grogmonster

I use to use actual weights when flying a 14 seat turbine, and generally found that I weighed less then if I used the company standard weights (not by much mind you) and that was on a mining run. I have no issue in using them, you just need to be sensible about it.

[morno]

I'm amazed that some people in here think that just because there are such things as "Standard Weights", it's ok to overload the aircraft, because on paper your standard weights tell you it's not.

Without looking up the regs etc., I'm pretty sure somewhere in there, it says that if your TOW comes within 100Kg's of MTOW, then actual weights must be used (for certain sized aircraft of course. A PA31 would fall into that, as do many others). OR, if the weight of a person is clearly not anywhere near a standard passenger weight, their actual weight must be used. Then there's also the rule that says standard weights and actual weights cannot be mixed.

So that pretty much says that unless you're several hundred Kg's under your MTOW, only carrying a few people, and they're looking around your standard weight's, then all aircraft under 5,700kg's at least, should NOT be using standard passenger weights.

You, as the Pilot In Command, are entirely responsible for ensuring your aircraft is loaded in accordance with the POH and MTOW and MRW is not exceeded. NO EXCEPTIONS.

It's threads like this that show how many muppets there really are in this industry with no clear understanding of the rules. There are NO loopholes in regards to weight and balance.

morno

[Monopole]

I'm amazed that some people in here think that just because there are such things as "Standard Weights", it's ok to overload the aircraft, because on paper your standard weights tell you it's not

Morno, except for the original poster who made the (false) assumption that Guess everyone up the front just sits there dumb and happy, noone else has stated it is OK to Take off over weight.

The standard weights are in the CAAPs. They are not a legal requirement. The CAR's dont offer any 'Advisories', only legal requirements ie; 4) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to take off if its gross weight exceeds its maximum take-off weight.

Not telling you to suck eggs, but nobody is suggesting otherwise

[D-J]

how many of us here can say 'I've never taken off over mtow?" I can't imagine their would be to many

[Fratemate]

how many of us here can say 'I've never taken off over mtow?" I can't imagine their would be to manyHopefully there will be nobody who KNOWINGLY did that but, I think, that's one of the points of this discussion.

Quite a few years ago I flew a 757 to Athens (Greece) and quite happily went about the business of getting the aircraft turned round for our trip back to the UK. I was then asked by one of the dollies if I could give her a hand with a pax bag as she couldn't lift it into the overhead compartment. Well, I started to pick this up and, bugger me, it was all I could do not to give myself a hernia. Anyway, that got my grey cells going and so I did a troll through the cabin and 'tested' some of the other 'not greater than 7kg' bags and was sorely disappointed with the results. My trust in the ground staff had gone from reasonable (we're talking about Greece) to very suspect, so I decided to further investigate with the suitcases being loaded. Every one I tested (very scientifically; by lifting it :)) was, in my opinion, very, very, much over the standard weight. It was at this stage that our ground agent gave me the figures and, sure enough, using standard weights, we were within limits.

Did I go? Of course not. I incurred the wrath of my Chief Pilot (for a few seconds) for causing a 1.5 hour delay whilst everything was taken off the aircraft and everybody had their bags weighed i.e I was not satisified with standard weights and went for actual weights. He was quite annoyed that I'd based my decision on my random tests but then was put firmly back in his box when he found that we would have been 1.2 tonnes over our MZFW. We were carrying a bunch of cargo, that had been weighed properly so, to put that into perspective, nearly every pax on that aircraft had gusting 50kg of extra weight.....and that was bags alone.

The point I am making, of course, is that had Doris not asked me to help her with that case I would have been none the wiser. I would have accepted the weights presented to me by the ground staff (you have to trust somebody to do their jobs) and we would have gone merrily on our way, fat, dumb and happy. Until the accident......:uhoh:

I have never, knowingly, taken off over MTOW. I have no idea whether I really have, or not. Bit of a worry eh :(

[Mr. Hat]

My original point exactly. And where is the regulator on this matter? Oh out to lunch with the General Manager no doubt...

A significant safety issue much like fatigue totally ignored. As long as you've got your asic, high viz vest and haven't taken any over the counter medication we'll be right..wont we?

[Jettson]

Thanks Fratemate your post shows that this obviously must happen more often then we think. Kind of makes my ramblings not so stupid!

So all those who :ugh: right back at you!

And Mr Hat seems as if you came accross an article written along the lines of what I was thinking. I will admit written a bit better than my poor english.

[morno]

Mono,
You're right, I just re-read some posts and have to agree. I change my wording of "In here" to "Out there".

morno

[400ER]

Hi all, with regards to the big jets eg 747, standard baggage weights are used as it would obviously take too long to weigh everyone and their bags at check in. QF use weights for adults 87kg, children 32kg, infants 10kg or maybe 0kg (from memory) and some carriers use male, female, children, infant weights. I also remember Air NZ having a higher passenger weight figure for rugby teams which was adjusted in the computer system.
My understanding is QF have to limit baggage so pax don't turn up to check in with everything including the kitchen sink.
By limiting the pax baggage weight allows a payload figure to be worked out for the sale of cargo.
eg 747-400ER mtow 412000kg
390 pax booked with bags 39000kg
fuel 160000kg
aircraft weight 190000kg
That leaves 23000kg for cargo sales.
QF overbook flights as passenger "no show" factor can be around 20 to 30. They also can over book cargo weight available as 20-30 passengers failing to turn up for a flight allows 2-3 tonne of weight for extra cargo to be uplifted.
Excess baggage can and does interfere with cargo weights especially on weight critical flights and leaving a 1500kg AKE container behind to get a few extra bags on costs a lot of money. Excess baggage charges are an allowance for any offloaded cargo.
Yes i know, not all flights are weight critical and not all excess baggage results in cargo offloads, it is a good grab for money. I don't always agree with it but airlines have to set some limit for passenger baggage.
Hope this helps,
Cheers

[john_tullamarine]

.. provided

(a) you base your "standard weights" on stat samples for a relevant population, and

(b) are applying the standard weights to populations of sufficient numbers

then all will be reasonably accurate or, for small population samples, at least reasonably likely to be conservative .. CG problems notwithstanding ..

170lb/77kg was based on a US military study from a LONG time ago and was still reasonably accurate in Oz when I was flying for AN .. on every occasion we choose to weigh the punters (F27, usually, when we were after every pound we could muster) the standard weight calculations came within a bull's roar of the scales figures.

CASA's John K did a very detailed study many years ago based on Oz medical data and came up with the basics which made their way into the CAAP. Provided one is sensible and pragmatic, I see little concern in using the CAAP data for a general Oz population sample .. albeit that we are getting a tad fatter as the years go by .. or is that just applicable to me ?

Silly to use standard weights for small aircraft ... but once you are up to a pax load of, say, 10-12, the standard deviation starts to motor down and you end up with sensibly accurate and commercial weights.

This presupposes that the population basis is appropriate and it is here that the system at the operator's level falls down. Unless the crews and loading folk have some idea of the population basis, then it becomes a bit tenuous.

A more sensible option, for a given operator, is to have several approved (or accepted) sets of standard weights to cover whatever passenger populations might be typical for that operation .. with the proviso that, if the passenger set patently is not representative of the statistics, then it is back to scales for a particular flight.

Quite a few years ago I flew a 757 to Athens ..

Amounts to a fraudulent misapplication of the system .. but, unfortunately, altogether too commonplace.