Weight Issues
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On a star
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weight Issues
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 $$ for my baggage while someone bringing on more total weight does not pay anything extra.
Am I therefore subsidising the cost of travel for larger people? Why do airlines care so much about your baggage being 1kg over weight when there is a chance your body weight would make a huge difference!
Excess baggage just for $$?
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.
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 $$ for my baggage while someone bringing on more total weight does not pay anything extra.
Am I therefore subsidising the cost of travel for larger people? Why do airlines care so much about your baggage being 1kg over weight when there is a chance your body weight would make a huge difference!
Excess baggage just for $$?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.
Last edited by Jettson; 29th Jul 2009 at 01:45. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the CAAPs
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
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
The use of one standard passenger weight for all aircraft can result in a high
probability of overloading.
7
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.
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
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.
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.subregulation (2) is applicable to the take-off, that lesser weight.
tobzalp, maybe not not stupiderer, but lazy
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.
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!
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.)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't help idiots
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...eight-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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you fly overloaded with your head up your @@@@ using standard weights as a defence you are an IDIOT!!!
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the statistics say, there will be a time when it is overloaded. Guess everyone up the front just sits there dumb and happy
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.
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Guess everyone up the front just sits there dumb and happy
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