Fat pax and TO Weight
Fat pax and TO Weight
Scenario was asked of me.
747 flight to LA from Syd.
Alll 430 seats booked
Max fuel needed with min reserves to get there etc, freight is carried so a/c is at max to weight to the kilo on the load sheet using standard pax weights.
pax arrive at terminal and they are all 150 kg, as in huge....all going to the weight watchers convention.
430 x 73 kilos ......(150kg - 77 standard weight = 73
aircraft is overweight by 31,390 kg.
question is, if the ramp agents suspect the actual pax weight is out, what happens.
how much can the actual aircraft weight differ from what is on the load sheet due to modern day living. Hell i havent been 77 kg since I was 13 years old.
How do the performance charts reflect a possible higher weight than on the load sheet.
747 flight to LA from Syd.
Alll 430 seats booked
Max fuel needed with min reserves to get there etc, freight is carried so a/c is at max to weight to the kilo on the load sheet using standard pax weights.
pax arrive at terminal and they are all 150 kg, as in huge....all going to the weight watchers convention.
430 x 73 kilos ......(150kg - 77 standard weight = 73
aircraft is overweight by 31,390 kg.
question is, if the ramp agents suspect the actual pax weight is out, what happens.
how much can the actual aircraft weight differ from what is on the load sheet due to modern day living. Hell i havent been 77 kg since I was 13 years old.
How do the performance charts reflect a possible higher weight than on the load sheet.
Firstly you will never get that high a bias in such a large number of people.
Secondly if the flights are known to carry large people on a regular basis the standard weight is increased. Flights in NZ to certain islands use a higher standard weight due to the average size of the passengers being higher.
The issue is really mining charter in turboprops where you will get 30 odd guys who are all well above the standard weight yet it seems not to be a problem. If the book says to use standard weights that's what you use unless the ops manual has something else in there.
Secondly if the flights are known to carry large people on a regular basis the standard weight is increased. Flights in NZ to certain islands use a higher standard weight due to the average size of the passengers being higher.
The issue is really mining charter in turboprops where you will get 30 odd guys who are all well above the standard weight yet it seems not to be a problem. If the book says to use standard weights that's what you use unless the ops manual has something else in there.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
60 large European males on a jolly to Australia, lots of bags, 40C at Yulara, you take standard weights at your risk.
60 Japanese at the same place you weigh them to get more fuel, atually weigh them in pairs so not to embarras the individual.
All this in the times of REAL AIRLINES in Australia
60 Japanese at the same place you weigh them to get more fuel, atually weigh them in pairs so not to embarras the individual.
All this in the times of REAL AIRLINES in Australia
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a step back from the specifics of the question.
An aircraft has a documented maximum take-off weight which should not be exceeded - period.
If your company SOP's state to use standard weights and the aircraft works out to be overweight, that would be at the liability of the company would it not?
Pretty simple when you look at it like that, regardless of the reasoning for why so many passengers are above standard weight.
Also add into the equation that each passenger has their full 23 kg economy luggage plus the extra business and first class bags as well as a cabin bag at 7kg's plus a laptop and suit bag.
One can only assume that the airlines factor this fully into their freight loads, and baggage allowances.
It is an interesting thought what you have proposed and if Americans are really as large as we are led to believe, it would be interesting to see what their SOP's say in comparison to here.
An aircraft has a documented maximum take-off weight which should not be exceeded - period.
If your company SOP's state to use standard weights and the aircraft works out to be overweight, that would be at the liability of the company would it not?
Pretty simple when you look at it like that, regardless of the reasoning for why so many passengers are above standard weight.
Also add into the equation that each passenger has their full 23 kg economy luggage plus the extra business and first class bags as well as a cabin bag at 7kg's plus a laptop and suit bag.
One can only assume that the airlines factor this fully into their freight loads, and baggage allowances.
It is an interesting thought what you have proposed and if Americans are really as large as we are led to believe, it would be interesting to see what their SOP's say in comparison to here.
The issue is really mining charter in turboprops where you will get 30 odd guys who are all well above the standard weight yet it seems not to be a problem.
XXX, stop putting pics of me on Prune!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The cloud
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also down to the checking staff - if they feel it necessary then they will ensure you buy a second seat - or alternativly let ops and the captain know to qccomodate any discrepancies to the standard... The hardest part of this is when poorly trained staff are worrying about other things and fail to see the big picture that 20 obese people are queeing up for the same flight!!
All in all the bigger the group the Law of averages will usually work - standard weights are also not 77kg at our work (or any I thought it was 82 now)for the mining reason above and the fact we can't carry enough punters for it to average back down...
All in all the bigger the group the Law of averages will usually work - standard weights are also not 77kg at our work (or any I thought it was 82 now)for the mining reason above and the fact we can't carry enough punters for it to average back down...
If your company SOP's state to use standard weights and the aircraft works out to be overweight, that would be at the liability of the company would it not?
If you were ramped by CASA and the aircraft was somehow proven to be overloaded even though you had loaded as per the CASA approved ops manual and there was no alternative loading system I am not sure how CASA could prosecute you? You followed the loading system and it states that the aircraft is under the MTOW.
To do otherwise is opening a very large can of worms.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if Americans are really as large as we are led to believe, it would be interesting to see what their SOP's say in comparison to here.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: location loaction
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the ATP Performance exam I did,
Standard pax weights (81kg per pax or standard 87kg standard female, 76kg and all weights include cabin baggage) not sure if these figures are standard for all aircraft or are relevant to the 727. Alternatively if all pax are deemed by the PIC to be unacceptable as per your described, then all must be weighed and those weights used for the trim sheet. If this means that pax may ha e to be left behind or cargo left at the terminal so be it.
30+ton overweight for a 744 is probably pretty big. I don't fly these machines yet so some real world response would be interesting to hear.
Hope this helps
rocket
Standard pax weights (81kg per pax or standard 87kg standard female, 76kg and all weights include cabin baggage) not sure if these figures are standard for all aircraft or are relevant to the 727. Alternatively if all pax are deemed by the PIC to be unacceptable as per your described, then all must be weighed and those weights used for the trim sheet. If this means that pax may ha e to be left behind or cargo left at the terminal so be it.
30+ton overweight for a 744 is probably pretty big. I don't fly these machines yet so some real world response would be interesting to hear.
Hope this helps
rocket
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard pax weight in the Torres Strait use to be ~120kg.
Once had a 200kg pax only fit his leg in the bongo then gave up! Have heard of seats being taken out in the past, and pax strapped to the floor
Once had a 200kg pax only fit his leg in the bongo then gave up! Have heard of seats being taken out in the past, and pax strapped to the floor
No it is CASA's liability as they are the ones who approve the ops manual.
Just like they used to tell us how much fuel to carry, not any more. That way when it goes pear shaped they can avoid responsibility.
Same goes for CAO48 and the standard exemption, they hate it and want to put the responsibility back on the AOC holder by way of FRMS.
With regard to pax weights. Our ops manual does provide for the PIC to require actual weights due to an obvious weight average problem. Don't we all round up on the RTOW and V speeds for this reason.
Moderator
Several comments, if I may ...
(a) the "old" 170lb standard weight dates back to a US military population study - date eludes the memory but during the '40s if I recall correctly.
(b) during the evils of metrication .. 170lb magically became 77kg. (oops .. let my luddite tendencies get exposed .. slugs and poundals rule !)
(c) the figure also has some structural relevance as the seating designs standards used that basic occupant weight
(d) the use of standard weights has to be based on a rational statistical population study if they are to have much credence. It follows that different representative populations might well have different standard weights applied. More particularly, the population of 60-70 years ago - due to the influence of the ubiquitous Golden Arches - no longer reasonably applies.
(e) CASA's then John K did a detailed Australian study based on NHMRC data (as I recall) quite some years ago and that, eventually, made its way into CAAP 235-1. I have his report tucked away in the files and it was quite an impressive tome. Nice guy.
(f) in the nature of CAAPs and similar guidance material, the CAAP recommendation may not have the weight of legislation or regulation .. but it puts you in pretty good stead if you adopt it for operations
(g) use of ANY set of standard weights remains valid ONLY if the population sample presenting for boarding is representative of the population data which went into the statistical analyses used to develop the standard weights. IF NOT, then the operator needs to do something else .. which might be weighing the lot for this flight. The CAAP makes this point - very clearly - in the initial wordiology.
all going to the weight watchers convention
Not a representative population sample so the standard weights SHOULD go out the window for THIS flight
if the ramp agents suspect the actual pax weight is out, what happens
Depends on the operator's protocols and the State's regulatory requirements .. but should involve reverting to the declared Plan B.
How do the performance charts reflect a possible higher weight than on the load sheet
They don't.
Firstly you will never get that high a bias in such a large number of people
You can, and will, in skewed passenger list situations. A degree of operator and employee integrity is required if things are to be done sensibly and appropriately
If the book says to use standard weights that's what you use unless the ops manual has something else in there
An Australian Operations Manual ought not and, in light of the CAAP probably will not, state such as requirement without something akin to the CAAP caveat and a Plan B procedure.
If your company SOP's state to use standard weights and the aircraft works out to be overweight, that would be at the liability of the company would it not?
For the legal eagles to comment. However, while vicarious liability might insulate the pilot to some extent, the existence of relevant training (and, hence, knowledge) probably would put the pilot at legal risk after the incident ?
so many passengers are above standard weight
The stats are based on a population distribution (something like the old bell-curve) ... some are heavier, some are lighter. The task problem is to pick an appropriate middle ground, weighted a tad to the heavy side for comfort.
each passenger has their full 23 kg economy luggage plus
The operator should either have a rational statistical analysis to determine standard baggage weights .. or weigh the stuff.
the extra business and first class bags as well as a cabin bag at 7kg's plus a laptop and suit bag.
In the proper world .. all included in the studies ... or weighed separately
XXX, stop putting pics of me on Prune!
Thanks heavens .. thought it was me. Same work clobber, same bald patch, same svelte figure, same relaxed posture ... a mis-spent life has a lot to answer for.
If you were ramped by CASA ... I am not sure how CASA could prosecute you?
Easy ... refer to the CAAP and the Regs.
According to the ATP Performance exam I did
Suggest you rely more on the Regs and CAAPs than an exam work up
not sure if these figures are standard for all aircraft or are relevant to the 727
Standard weights relate to the people population and not the aircraft. The only aircraft distraction is with the numbers of passengers as population deviations (standard deviation statistics) become more important for smaller samples
the 82kg I said includes 5kg baggage so that would be 77kg
77kg has gone the way of the dodo. The CAAP figures don't include hand luggage.
(a) the "old" 170lb standard weight dates back to a US military population study - date eludes the memory but during the '40s if I recall correctly.
(b) during the evils of metrication .. 170lb magically became 77kg. (oops .. let my luddite tendencies get exposed .. slugs and poundals rule !)
(c) the figure also has some structural relevance as the seating designs standards used that basic occupant weight
(d) the use of standard weights has to be based on a rational statistical population study if they are to have much credence. It follows that different representative populations might well have different standard weights applied. More particularly, the population of 60-70 years ago - due to the influence of the ubiquitous Golden Arches - no longer reasonably applies.
(e) CASA's then John K did a detailed Australian study based on NHMRC data (as I recall) quite some years ago and that, eventually, made its way into CAAP 235-1. I have his report tucked away in the files and it was quite an impressive tome. Nice guy.
(f) in the nature of CAAPs and similar guidance material, the CAAP recommendation may not have the weight of legislation or regulation .. but it puts you in pretty good stead if you adopt it for operations
(g) use of ANY set of standard weights remains valid ONLY if the population sample presenting for boarding is representative of the population data which went into the statistical analyses used to develop the standard weights. IF NOT, then the operator needs to do something else .. which might be weighing the lot for this flight. The CAAP makes this point - very clearly - in the initial wordiology.
all going to the weight watchers convention
Not a representative population sample so the standard weights SHOULD go out the window for THIS flight
if the ramp agents suspect the actual pax weight is out, what happens
Depends on the operator's protocols and the State's regulatory requirements .. but should involve reverting to the declared Plan B.
How do the performance charts reflect a possible higher weight than on the load sheet
They don't.
Firstly you will never get that high a bias in such a large number of people
You can, and will, in skewed passenger list situations. A degree of operator and employee integrity is required if things are to be done sensibly and appropriately
If the book says to use standard weights that's what you use unless the ops manual has something else in there
An Australian Operations Manual ought not and, in light of the CAAP probably will not, state such as requirement without something akin to the CAAP caveat and a Plan B procedure.
If your company SOP's state to use standard weights and the aircraft works out to be overweight, that would be at the liability of the company would it not?
For the legal eagles to comment. However, while vicarious liability might insulate the pilot to some extent, the existence of relevant training (and, hence, knowledge) probably would put the pilot at legal risk after the incident ?
so many passengers are above standard weight
The stats are based on a population distribution (something like the old bell-curve) ... some are heavier, some are lighter. The task problem is to pick an appropriate middle ground, weighted a tad to the heavy side for comfort.
each passenger has their full 23 kg economy luggage plus
The operator should either have a rational statistical analysis to determine standard baggage weights .. or weigh the stuff.
the extra business and first class bags as well as a cabin bag at 7kg's plus a laptop and suit bag.
In the proper world .. all included in the studies ... or weighed separately
XXX, stop putting pics of me on Prune!
Thanks heavens .. thought it was me. Same work clobber, same bald patch, same svelte figure, same relaxed posture ... a mis-spent life has a lot to answer for.
If you were ramped by CASA ... I am not sure how CASA could prosecute you?
Easy ... refer to the CAAP and the Regs.
According to the ATP Performance exam I did
Suggest you rely more on the Regs and CAAPs than an exam work up
not sure if these figures are standard for all aircraft or are relevant to the 727
Standard weights relate to the people population and not the aircraft. The only aircraft distraction is with the numbers of passengers as population deviations (standard deviation statistics) become more important for smaller samples
the 82kg I said includes 5kg baggage so that would be 77kg
77kg has gone the way of the dodo. The CAAP figures don't include hand luggage.
The reason why I asked was,
10 or mre years ago when I worked at QF engineering Sydney, I was watching a group of American retiress board one of those round the world charters at the Jet base in Sydney.
7 coaches pulled up and out popped 200 of the biggest, roundest people I have ever seen. The smallest would have been 150kg.
10 or mre years ago when I worked at QF engineering Sydney, I was watching a group of American retiress board one of those round the world charters at the Jet base in Sydney.
7 coaches pulled up and out popped 200 of the biggest, roundest people I have ever seen. The smallest would have been 150kg.
10 or mre years ago when I worked at QF engineering Sydney, I was watching a group of American retiress (sic) board one of those round the world charters at the Jet base in Sydney.
At that time, for charters such as military, or the above, it was QF practice to use actual weights, as the statistical standard weights are not applicable.
No idea what the system now is??
Tootle pip
