FAA changes pax weight guidelines
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA changes pax weight guidelines
Apparently, the FAA has decided to change weights used calculate load and balance to at least according the the New York Times here .
The article is pretty long 2 pages so I can't really post it. Registration is free btw.
The article is pretty long 2 pages so I can't really post it. Registration is free btw.
Last edited by JetDriverWannabe; 13th May 2003 at 21:06.
Care to elucidate? The link merely invites one to register with the NY Times.
Has the FAA raised pax weight assumptions in view of the increasing incidence of Hamburger Backside seen in the US? Two acres of straining turquoise crimplene attempting to restrain buttocks the size of Brazil would seem to indicate a weight rather in excess of 190 pounds?
Has the FAA raised pax weight assumptions in view of the increasing incidence of Hamburger Backside seen in the US? Two acres of straining turquoise crimplene attempting to restrain buttocks the size of Brazil would seem to indicate a weight rather in excess of 190 pounds?
It's a multi page article but here are the first two paragraphs:
"WASHINGTON, May 12 — The Federal Aviation Administration today ordered airlines that fly planes with more than 19 seats to raise the assumed average weight of each passenger by 10 pounds and the assumed weight for each checked bag by an additional 5 to ensure that their planes are not overloaded.
The notice, which was sent to all airlines, gave them 90 days to adopt the new weight rules or to conduct their own surveys of passenger and luggage weight. The actions were prompted by the January crash of a US Airways commuter plane in North Carolina that may have been within current weight limits but may still have been overloaded. The National Transportation Safety Board is set to open hearings into that crash next week. "
Same article is in Flight this week.
I've been registered with the NYT for some time and haven't suffered any SPAM etc as a result (famous last words!).
"WASHINGTON, May 12 — The Federal Aviation Administration today ordered airlines that fly planes with more than 19 seats to raise the assumed average weight of each passenger by 10 pounds and the assumed weight for each checked bag by an additional 5 to ensure that their planes are not overloaded.
The notice, which was sent to all airlines, gave them 90 days to adopt the new weight rules or to conduct their own surveys of passenger and luggage weight. The actions were prompted by the January crash of a US Airways commuter plane in North Carolina that may have been within current weight limits but may still have been overloaded. The National Transportation Safety Board is set to open hearings into that crash next week. "
Same article is in Flight this week.
I've been registered with the NYT for some time and haven't suffered any SPAM etc as a result (famous last words!).
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard this on the radio this morning too and I was confused because I thought the average weight was taken to be 170lbs. Adding ten to that should be 180lbs.
170 must be a part 91 suggestion I suppose.
170 must be a part 91 suggestion I suppose.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I were king for a day...
...I would abolish the use of average weights. Period.
Or, maybe, I'd allow them on airplanes with a MGTOW in excess of 100,000#. Maybe.
But average weights have no place in a 19-seater.
"Step up on the scale, ma'am."
Or, maybe, I'd allow them on airplanes with a MGTOW in excess of 100,000#. Maybe.
But average weights have no place in a 19-seater.
"Step up on the scale, ma'am."
