Standard Pax Weights

[Mach E Avelli]

The Samoa thread was canned for degenerating into 'fluff'.

HOWEVER, the 77 kg adult standard weight allowed by the rules is well overdue for review. After WW II, 77kg was probably about what people did weigh averaged across the two sexes, but that was nearly 70 years ago. Setting the problems of obesity aside, it does seem that with better diet, people are getting bigger. Plenty of 16 year old males would probably be approaching 77 kg and not considered obese. What does the average Australian adult now weigh? Last time I was forced by CASA requirement to do a survey for an RPT jet operation, males came out at 89 kg and females at 74 kg, and these people were not young, therefore generally not as big as following generations. In fact the demographic was what could be described as grey nomads. With cabin baggage the average was very close to 100 kg per male and 85 kg per female, and from memory those were the numbers we adopted, causing the financial and marketing people to have conniptions. Because of course they had done their payload promises on 77 kg, including cabin baggage.

No matter what size aircraft, the potential for tears is there if we continue with the 77 kg standard.

[john_tullamarine]

The old standard weight of 170lb (77kg) dates back to a North American population study of US male military personnel. The date of the report eludes my doddery memory but somewheres back in the war years or shortly after.

What amazes me is that the weight was reasonable for so long. I can recall on the F27 in the mid-70s often weighing the pax when fuel was supercritical .. with the pax numbers around the 30-40 mark, 170lb was pretty well spot on.

Acknowledging the increasing Australian rate of obesity, CASA Airworthiness ran a very detailed study - by John K - around 30 years ago. The study was based on Australian National data and was a rational representation of the then Australian population.

After a few years of frustration for John, his report eventually was promulgated to the Industry and its main elements still form the basis for the present CAAP 235-1 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/235_1.pdf).

I would be surprised if CASA went along with the use of 77kg these days unless an operator could put up a very strong argument to undervalue the CAAP ?

If folks can find a copy of John's original report, which provides considerable detail of the statistical protocols (for non-statistician users) which are sensible to use, the process could be reworked for current population sample data.

Some of the Island populations (along with football teams, Sumo wrestlers, etc.) definitely warrant weight control calculations run on a basis different to the CAAP ....

[Ixixly]

Was reading a study done for the EASA back in 2009 which just about agreed with what you came up with Mach E Avelli, what was also noted was that the average person weighed about 5kg more during the Winter than the Summer, I think this was mostly put down to the type of clothing being worn but may have had some kind of biological reasoning for it as well.

http://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/research/Weight%20Survey%20R20090095%20Final.pdf

Thats the link, well worth a read, especially for those using the 77kg. The average male it was found in the above survey weighed 88.7kg in Summer and 93.5kg in Winter with an average handbag weight of 6kg in Summer and 7.2kg in Winter, a heck of a lot more than 77kg, especially if you're talking about a fully loaded aircraft with 100+ seats!!! This survey was conducted on just over 22,000 Passengers so its a pretty wide range.

SOME OTHER FUN FACTS - Yes I'm this bored

The average weight for a males "Handbag" was slightly more than a females...go figure?! Could have just been a lot of blokes minding the missus bag though :E Though you'll be glad to know that females still took the heaviest luggage checked in, but disappointingly only about 0.2 - 0.3 kg more.

People from South America, always seemed to have the heaviest bags, draw your own conclusions there!!

People in first class carried the most baggage, shock horror.

The largest women by departure point were from North America, the men were a reasonably even split but the lightest coming from "Spain, Portugal and Italy" (They were lumped together!) So maybe there is something to the Italian Stallion after all!! The largest men were travelling to "Other Eur. Countries (Including Russia) and the largest women were heading to the "UK, Ireland" and "Scandinavia and Iceland".

Low cost travellers generally weighed less than their full-cost travelling counterparts.

People on Business in Summer weighed 6kg more than their Leisure counterparts and 10kg more in Winter... the Business Traveller always weighed more though :} On Average, almost 10kg more.

25% of people carried more than the allocated CARRY-ON baggage allowance, no stats on those who got away with it and those who were pulled up on it though.

Anywho, lots of fun facts for those interested in having a read through the results at the end of the linked survey.

[D'pirate]

100 KG has got to be a safer average :ouch:

[A37575]

Noumea to Wallis island in the South Pacific. The Wallesians are big people like the Tongans and Samoans. Years ago the captain of a 737 was so concerned at the poor cruise performance of his aircraft he suspected a zero fuel weight error. Arrangements were made by radio that all passengers would be weighed on leaving the aircraft at Wallis is. Of the some 100 passengers aboard, the majority of adults were found to weigh over 100 kgs each with a good proportion being over 120 kgs as well as a few at 135 kgs.

The aircraft was subsequently found to be 1500 kgs over the max structural limit because the load sheet was based upon 77 kgs for males and 67 kgs for females. An engine failure on take off would certainly had led to a below expected climb gradient which was a problem at Noumea because of high terrain in the take off flight path.

[jas24zzk]

I would be surprised if CASA went along with the use of 77kg these days unless an operator could put up a very strong argument to undervalue the CAAP ?


77kg is the standard figure still used in the PPL and CPL exams, esp for loading chart echo.
Can't comment on those for ATPL.

By using them in the exams, i think CASA are doing exactly what you mention in the second part of your paragraph.

Cheers
Jas

[Brian Abraham]

Some ten years or so ago I did a lengthy survey on the passengers who passed through our doors. We worked on actual weights in our operation (offshore oil) ie absolutely everything was weighed, be it pax, baggage or freight. The vast majority of our pax were male and represented a broad cross section of the general community, The average worked out to be 89.8kg (198 lbs).

[rigpiggy]

in Canada we just changed back to summer weights of 200/165

[Capt Claret]

Late 80's flying to Lady Elliot Isl, where every thing was weighed (600 m strip high water mark to high water mark) the then Chief Pilot was quite surprised when he added the pax weights for the year (adult) and divided by the number of adult pax, and came up with .....

77.

A good laugh was watching a person of ample proportions, usually the female gender, argue why they shouldn't have to get onto the scales. Then huff and puff, as they slipped off their thongs (foot ones) to reduce the reading! :}

[80-87]

the 77 kg adult standard weight allowed by the rules is well overdue for review

Your observation is quite true. The EASA standard weight is 85 Kgs. (I believe you are talking CAA though). If an operator wants to change the standard weight, normally they would have to apply to the NAA for an exemption and carry out a risk analysis for it.

Usually, these exemptions are time limited and the operator will have to come up with a formal weight study plan, in order to receive another exemption. The NAA will normally require an actual weigh of passengers and carry-on, prior to boarding.

The normal requirement is to weight 2000 passengers for which the exemption is being requested and the study must be monitored by the NAA. The FAA has a requirement to weigh 2400 passengers prior to being considered for an exemption.

[Wally Mk2]

I don't think it's rocket science to know that pretty much all or at at least 80% of A/C T/off overweight the world over, well compared to the calculated T/off weight that is.
Aussie are amongst the fattest on the planet & getting worse!
Some of the carry on bags I see get past ground handling staff onto the A/C are nothing short of a 10 man tent all squashed into a soft bag!

84 kg's inc carry on bags per adult...............yeah right like to see that!


Wmk2

[Avgas172]

The average worked out to be 89.8kg (198 lbs).

Bloody skinny buggers them rig workers eh .....:E

[PA39]

AOC holders must have a serviceable set of scales. The scales take preference over the std weight.

[Mach E Avelli]

If so then that is news to me. As a pax never once in my life have I been asked to step on the scales. Almost every operator uses standard weights with the possible exception of oil rig choppers required by contract or regulations to use actual weights and those who will gain an advantage by weighing

Agreed they don't all use 77 kg. But if they have approval for standard, scales only get used for baggage..

[601]

Almost every operator uses standard weights with the possible exception of oil rig choppers required by contract or regulations to use actual weights and those who will gain an advantage by weighing

Since the recommendation for standard weight for aircraft below 7 seats went out the window, (Para 11 CAAP 235-1(1)) all the OMs I have seen call for all pax and baggage to be weighed.

77 kg so 20th century. The minimum std weight for an adult male in an aircraft with 7-9 seats is 86kg reducing to 81.2 for aircraft with more that 500 seats.


Civil Aviation Safety Authority - CAAPs (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91054)

I would be surprised if CASA went along with the use of 77kg these days

CASA will just point to the CAAP. End of story.

[patagonianworelaud]

If so then that is news to me.

Really, doesn't say much about your time in the Pacific, nor as a wheel in Oozejet!!

Baggage scales are a requirement, as you say, and they can be used to weigh pax if needed.

Operator can opt to use std wts or actual wts if there is any concern, but not a combination. Once they opt for scale, then that is when those wts take precedence over std wts. PA39 is correct, just didn't put it proper.

Thought you would've known that, Mack.

Having said that, I agree that std wts are well overdue for revision. CASA will be on to it now, after all it's been on Proon!!!! They don't seem to glean/are reluctant to accept info from the industry itself, unfortunately.

[Mach E Avelli]

My comment was in relation to the claim that scales were the preferred option for establishing pax weights.
Not by the commercial people and infact when we were required to do the weight survey for casa, the only way acceptable to females in particular was to weigh them with their cabin baggage. Thus they could blame the bag for the result.

[PA39]

Makes you wonder at times who is sitting up the front. Have a ramp check with a load of fatties booked in at 77kg and see how ya go. Have a prang with a load of fatties and see who gets the blame for the w+B discrepancy. See who th insurer points the finger at when they won't pay.:rolleyes:

[Roj approved]

For all the Airbus drivers, check your gross weight on the lower Ecam against your fuel burn after take off, you may be surprised by how much more than the standard weight (83kgs) the pax and bags really are:rolleyes:

(FCOM 1 DSC-22_40-30 P 2/4)
The principle of the speed computation is as follows:
‐ First, the FAC computes VS1G (stall speed). From VS1G it computes the Gross Weight (GW) which is also sent to the Elevator Aileron computers:
• When the aircraft is below 14 500 ft and 250 kt, it computes this from current angle of attack, speed/Mach, altitude, thrust, and CG.
• When the aircraft is above 14 500 ft or 250 kt, it computes this out of the GW, which it has memorized and updated with a fuel consumption model set in the FAC.

Basically, the aircraft reweighs itself once airborne and calculates all the speeds from there, clever french stuff:cool: