Why babies under two called plus 'one'

[Pin Head]

For the passenger count, babies under two are not with adults and children.

Is this because they are small and maybe hard to find in the event of an evacuation?

Also for the oxygen masks and the extension seat belts?

Thanks

Pin

[champair79]

Isn't it because if they don't occupy a passenger seat, they don't have a 'mass' on the load sheet (I.e. The adults mass is supposed to cover the infant too if they're sitting on the parent's lap)?

Champ

[regional_flyer]

It's pretty much what champair79 said. Children under 2 are classified as infants and are regarded differently to everyone over 2. They must be seated on an adult's lap for takeoff and landing, are not entitled to their own seat, don't generally get things like a meal allocated for them, etc. A passenger count total is of the number of seats occupied as opposed to number of persons on board - giving a count of 100+3, for example, makes it clear there are 3 lap children rather than just saying there are 103 persons on board.

[Piltdown Man]

The above may be plausible explanations, but exactly where and when does this information get used? When you have a real problem, you give the authorites the number of persons on board. You do not give a "plus" number, because they don't care. If time permits (and it generally does) you break it down into males, females, children, infants and crew. This is useful information for the RFF crews. Again "plus" is not used. This "plus" rubbish is a left over from the past and has no real purpose today.

PM

[balan22]

The exact reason why infants are "plus one" is because of the weight and balance of the aircraft... So for example Ryanair counts adults as 87 kg per person, therefore if an infant would be taken as one person that would create a huge discrepancy in weight. Imagine 10 infants taken as adults. That's 870 kilos excess. And if they're all seated in the back of the A/C, it is highly likely to be out of trim and therefore a tail strike might occur during lift off.

[Piltdown Man]

I don't buy that either. And whilst RYR may use different weights, infant do weigh something. So by not counting their weight you could be overloaded and/or out of trim.

PM

[B737900er]

Its for the weight and balance on the load sheet. Male = 88kg Female = 70kg child = 35kg
Infant = NA

Of course these are standard weights and does build in margin (supposed to) into the traffic load calculation.

I flew a 900ER once with 245 passengers. 215 pax plus 30 infants!!


*This should be reviewed soon in my opinion because the average person is getting heavier.

[Piltdown Man]

...and some are assuming that a headcount is done. We haven't done headcounts for years.

PM

[B737900er]

Ive never heard of a short-haul carrier not doing head counts. Long haul I guess is different.

[Piltdown Man]

Well you have now. And we are not the only ones.

PM

[B737900er]

IM intrigued, So you solely rely on the guys at the boarding gate to count your passengers? How do you know if there is a discrepancy with pax expected and actual pax boarded ?

[750XL]

The above may be plausible explanations, but exactly where and when does this information get used? When you have a real problem, you give the authorites the number of persons on board. You do not give a "plus" number, because they don't care. If time permits (and it generally does) you break it down into males, females, children, infants and crew. This is useful information for the RFF crews. Again "plus" is not used. This "plus" rubbish is a left over from the past and has no real purpose today.

Errrr, what? '100 plus 1' is the universally recognised format for passing passenger figures, whether it's to flight deck, cabin crew, ground staff etc. All checkin departure control systems use '100 plus 1' as infants don't have their own boarding card, therefore are counted as a plus one.

I don't buy that either. And whilst RYR may use different weights, infant do weigh something. So by not counting their weight you could be overloaded and/or out of trim.

Infants do weigh something, but they weigh practically nothing. The difference in weight between Adult 1 (a 100kg+ male off on his holidays to Spain) vs Adult 2 (18 year old size 8 female) are far greater than the weight of an infant. Not to mention the fact average bag weights are used.

Ive never heard of a short-haul carrier not doing head counts. Long haul I guess is different.

I only know of one short haul airline that still does head counts, and I work at a very large international airport. The majority of carriers don't even check boarding cards these days, trust is placed with the gate staff. Headcounts generally cause far more issues than they resolve, back in the day it wasn't uncommon to get 10 incorrect headcounts from the cabin crew.

[Wageslave]

IM intrigued, So you solely rely on the guys at the boarding gate to count your passengers? How do you know if there is a discrepancy with pax expected and actual pax boarded ?

Yes, incredible as it seems, and despite a decade or more of daily proof of their inability to count. It allegedly saves 90seconds and in a 25min turnaround that looks like a substantial percentage to the gnomes in the office who decree such things.

it wasn't uncommon to get 10 incorrect headcounts from the cabin crew.
That was commonly due to incorrect counting methods (ie empty seat count) which is fouled up by those +1s sitting in an unsold seat or "discussing" the headcount with the dispatcher in an attempt to "correct" it (great human factors stuff, that) as well as a seeming inability in my loco operator for cc to understand the fundamental point of a headcount in the first place.
Many times have I been offered 124 plus three plus a cello - when 127 was the correct answer...
A cello??? In a headcount???
You'd have to have been there to believe it!

[Croissant2016]

Many times have I been offered 124 plus three plus a cello - when 127 was the correct answer...
A cello??? In a headcount???
You'd have to have been there to believe it!

But if the cello is occupying a seat the tech crew need to be informed of this so i don't see why advising a cello is onboard is so strange. In my airline, it's procedure to inform tech crew so they can add it in to weight and balance

[Rwy in Sight]

Wageslave,

You talked about incorrect counting methods (ie empty seat count) . Which is the best method for a cabin crew to run a head-count?

[ShotOne]

It's worth adding that these passenger figures are not what would be passed over the RT in an emergency situation. In that case nobody is interested in +3, cello's, etc. What is passed is a single figure of souls on board, total number of humans inc. babies and crew.

[Piltdown Man]

Actually, rarely are we told the actual passenger numbers. The loadsheet happens by smoke'n'mirrors and any numbers that are needed are sent automatically. We haven't done headcounts for years. But even when I did the loadsheet, I could never work out what to do with the plusses other than to stick them in a little box on the loadsheet. But it pleased people when they passed it on.

PM

[Piltdown Man]

Lightbulb time: When flying charters, all passengers (male, female & child) used to have the same weight (76kgs from memory). So it was for the loadsheet. As a scheduled operator, we have different weights for each of the previous categories so the "plus" is superfluous.

PM

[Wageslave]

. Which is the best method for a cabin crew to run a head-count?

Is that a serious question?

How would you do a headcount other than by .... errrr ..... counting heads? Anything else is not a headcount, is it?

Add a cello to a loadsheet? You aren't serious? Why, it weighs less than many other carry on bags? What is it that's so special about cellos that they seem to take on quasi-human form when in an aircraft? Blankets and bags in empty seats aren't counted, why should a cello be different?

Piltdown man has it pretty well, I reckon. No one really knows what the plus one means and it is of no use to anyone but it pleases the gnomes in some dim corner of an office if that box is filled in.

[750XL]

Add a cello to a loadsheet? You aren't serious? Why, it weighs less than many other carry on bags? What is it that's so special about cellos that they seem to take on quasi-human form when in an aircraft? Blankets and bags in empty seats aren't counted, why should a cello be different?

For every airline I've handled (and I'm talking upwards of 100 airlines) cello's are always added as a weight onto the loadsheet. Cello on a seat is counted as an 'occupied revenue seat' therefore included in the passenger figure, but not the total heads on board figure.

Check your airlines load control manual, it'll be in there.

[Matvey]

Add a cello to a loadsheet? You aren't serious? Why, it weighs less than many other carry on bags? What is it that's so special about cellos that they seem to take on quasi-human form when in an aircraft? Blankets and bags in empty seats aren't counted, why should a cello be different?

Because a boarding pass will be issued to the cello, since it's occupying a seat, and issuing it a BP is the easiest way to ensure that no one sits in the place reserved for the cello, since you won't have 2 BPs for seat 23E, or whatever. You then make note of the cello, so that you know not to use a standard adult passenger weight, but to use some lower number (I actually have no idea how much a cello weighs - 15kg, maybe, but certainly not the 77kg that you'd otherwise use).

[Croissant2016]

Wageslave,
Which is the best method for a cabin crew to run a head-count?

Count heads. Not arms, feet, bags or empty seats. Heads only. Always accurate.

[Rwy in Sight]

Wageslave mentioned That was commonly due to incorrect counting methods (ie empty seat count) there are some methods which are incorrect and I thought there are more than the obvious one - hence the question.

[ExXB]

It's also for ticketing, from the days when tickets had red carbon on the back.