Weight Issues
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 日本
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how many of us here can say 'I've never taken off over mtow?" I can't imagine their would be to many
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......
I have never, knowingly, taken off over MTOW. I have no idea whether I really have, or not. Bit of a worry eh
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On a star
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
So all those who
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.
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
You're right, I just re-read some posts and have to agree. I change my wording of "In here" to "Out there".
morno
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Moderator
.. 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.
(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.
