Extra fuel burn per passenger
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Albany, GA
Age: 71
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Yes, we are fairly fat".
Terribly non-PC, coming eastwards from the country which started the craze!
Aren't you supposed to say "gravitationally-challenged" so as not to offend those of a higher wake turbulence category?
'Twill soon be a hate crime over in EU to use such an abusive term in public or written communication, punishable by attending diversity training etc.
Terribly non-PC, coming eastwards from the country which started the craze!
Aren't you supposed to say "gravitationally-challenged" so as not to offend those of a higher wake turbulence category?
'Twill soon be a hate crime over in EU to use such an abusive term in public or written communication, punishable by attending diversity training etc.
Years ago flying offshore from Aberdeen.
The so-called standard weight for the offshore passengers was 180 lbs.; 170lbs for him plus 10lbs. for his wet suit etc.. This oil company had a policy where they were weighed individually because that, in most cases as they weighed less, they could get more freight on.
I planned the trip and sent down the payload to traffic. They phoned up shortly after and asked if I could take some more to which I refused. Later on along came the manifest and I noticed that the passenger weight was an exact multiplication of 180lbs.
I went down to query this remarkable coincidence.
"They were too heavy when we weighed them so we reverted to standard weights."
The so-called standard weight for the offshore passengers was 180 lbs.; 170lbs for him plus 10lbs. for his wet suit etc.. This oil company had a policy where they were weighed individually because that, in most cases as they weighed less, they could get more freight on.
I planned the trip and sent down the payload to traffic. They phoned up shortly after and asked if I could take some more to which I refused. Later on along came the manifest and I noticed that the passenger weight was an exact multiplication of 180lbs.
I went down to query this remarkable coincidence.
"They were too heavy when we weighed them so we reverted to standard weights."
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard weights and consequential problems. I remember an incident years ago, on a small turbo-prop, I think. It was carrying a group of pax who had been to a coin collectors fare. They were stout gentlemen and had light overnight bags in the hold plus carry-on. The a/c performance was sluggish. Later it turned out that the carry-on contained their coin collection and was way over the 5kgs or whatever the standard allowance was. Each pax was a few kgs over the standard; multiply the whole lot by 30 pax and the overweight could be felt in the trim and overall performance.
I think they got away with it, or was there a crash? Some will remember better.
I think they got away with it, or was there a crash? Some will remember better.
I forget the type but it was a small turboprop and the captain was female...the shifting weight due to gear retraction caused that airplane crashed into a hangar
I think you are referring to https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20030108-0 accident
I think you are referring to https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20030108-0 accident
So nothing to do with the landing gear (the MLG retracts forwards on the 1900, so retraction couldn't have contributed to the pitch-up).
