6`4 and 118kgs suited and booted and like femmes "Bruno" I am unfarely obese. BMI is rubbish, Ive less than 16% body fat so wouldn`t use that rule anywhere serious.

Flybymike.... isn`t Kylie about 45kgs?

What a surprise to introduce a new measure :} 179,5 cm (how_ _ ever bitter, never made the mark) 80 kilos. Sans uniform, bag, ideals. And the shades; oh, almost forgot the shades!:sad:

Thanks for the reply's ladies and gents.
We have 18 useable samples! Flying Femme has, unusally for a woman, stated her weight but not her height! So we cant use that data.
The figures look like this now:-
Top wight is Stocker at 118kg, but he is 6'4" and probably not the man you want to start a fight with:} Totally agree with you on the BMI Stocker!
Lightest man is Mark1@71kg, but interestingly you are not the lightest per [email protected]/inch. That honour goes to Johnm@ 0.98kg/inch. A kilo John is 2.2 pounds, its the European way of doing it! Some like it, some dont! People have gone to jail in Britain for selling bananas in pounds when the government insist on kilo's, Honest:eek:

This gives us an average of 87.22kg/Pax. The airlines use 77kg/Pax for flight planning, the baggage and fuel they have an accurate weight to enter into the flight computer! Could this mean a 400 pax 747 is potentially 4088kg over weight? I just checked Mark1's post and his 1960's dummy was 77 kg too! But they have revised this upto 80kg. Have the airlines done the same?
As four GA, i think it would be reasonable to apply these new figures when calculating passenger loadings. A true four seater with say 6hrs endurance, inc reserves would need a payload of 682kg/1500lbs, which aircraft fits that role then?(PA32 i think!) Children or East European, or other types of bride would seem to be eseential if us pilots want to stay in weight and ballance!:ok:
Now where did that funny grubby chart thing go with all the data on it? And whats a moment arm?:}

The problem with that, pistongone, is that in a 747 you get a reasonable average over a few hundred people. And a 747 can carry a few more tons; I doubt anybody would notice an extra 1-2% on the weight.

Whereas in a 2- or 4-seat spamcan you are averaging over far fewer people, and if you get 2 140kg fatties and 2 normal persons then you could be dramatically over MTOW.

I was looking at this with some light heartedness, however, now you mention it, a 747 is 400tonnes MAUW, so a 4000kg discrepancy is 10% of your total. How many flights are at MAUW in a 747? Because at lower weights it would be more than 10% inacurate! I seem to recall that a rule of thumb is "it cost a 1/3rd of a tonne to carry a tonne of extra fuel"? I will have to ask my airline friend for conformation. So that 4 tonne could be a bit more significant than i thought:confused: Did you know that Ryanair have a league table of pilots fuel usage? Well the pilot at the bottom of the league costs the airline his wages in wasted fuel! I should imagine other airlines have similar league table? Perhaps some of our commercial contributer could clarify please?
Sorry for the thread creep.:)

When will we see the day that pax on commercial flights are charged extra for being over 77 kg at check-in? If fuel prices continue their trend it'd make sense.

Airborne....

looks like you will have to leave your headset at home to save you the surcharge....some of us will have to resort to more extreme measures.

Thanks Airbourne!!:{

If this bright idea gets adopted by the airlines through reading this thread, " ... I will hunt you down and gut you like a fish!" to quote the Grinch!:O

More to the point, i hope M O'Leary doesnt read this:eek:

I'll just have to check in in my Y-fronts :}

I was looking at this with some light heartedness, however, now you mention it, a 747 is 400tonnes MAUW, so a 4000kg discrepancy is 10% of your total

Only 1%.

However, a couple of fatties in a spamcan could put it say 10% over MTOW, or more to the point 10% over the weight you thought it was, which is at least 20% extra runway length required.

IO540.......However, a couple of fatties in a spamcan....

What a wonderful euphemism...

Even at my weight I was rarely asked by my instructors to do a weight and balance check,even when one of them was a wee "fattie".
I always did one however, even if it was at the irritation of an enthusiastic FI wanting to get going as soon as possible in order to return for his morning bacon rolls.

And as pointed out by IO, the smaller the craft the less you have to play with.....

IO540, you are quite right! Got me kilos and tonnes mixed up didnt i:confused:
It is 1% and i am sure that will have been allowed for in the w+b calcs! Its these long periods of leave you know, they arent good for my health. Still back to the land of zero band width in two weeks:*

Having met his wife, I would suggest the local super-model agency ;)


While we are all talking about pilot weight here, it doesn't necessarily mean that the average persons weight is in anyway correlated to the average pilots weight ;) As a group I suspect pilots probably have a higher income than the general population, are probably in more senior positions, and may very well have a different weight profile. While I do regularly fly with other pilots, I often fly with non pilots too ;)

dp

Dublin...

are you suggesting that size is an attribute of seniority...

I dont think income has much to do with size... ok, if you earn more you might like to eat out more, drink a bit more wine than normal etc but what about low income folks who can only afford to eat crap.. I am of course referring to many FI`s struggling up the ladder(just to keep this on an aviation track)

Dublinpilot, you are TOO kind - but I will pass on your comment anyway ;)

Stocker -

Do you really believe that low income people have to eat crap? There is indeed a correlation between income and quality of food eaten (and general health, and many other things...) but IMHO it is not caused by lack of money but by lack of education. ATPL candidates may be on below average income but anybody passing the 14 ATP exams cannot be so stupid they cannot work out what food is good or bad for them. Decent food is not any more expensive than crap food - unless one goes for organic which is expensive but its health benefits are highly debatable.

It depends if I'm flying before or after lunch.

100Kg - of pure muscle :}, 185cm....oh ok, there is a teeny bit of a beer belly too :O. I put on 10Kg when I quit smoking 15 months ago and it has only just started to go down...Still, best thing I ever did......

Purely to add to the female stats, I'm 5'6½" (that's an important half) and
usually about 124lb. That's all A1 according to BMI stuff which seems to mean very little.

The accoutrements? More in winter, less in summer.

IO540.....

No I dont actually believe that, just wondered what reaction it would provoke.

Up here in Scotland we have a severe problem with diet assosciated illness and are probably the most unhealthy bunch in Europe and I am well aware of several studies on "class and diet" and you are right, education is a huge factor.

I wonder how many students apply the theories of so called brain foods to enhance their learning and memory capabilities.