Todos
← Back to Squawk list
U.S. Airlines May Start Weighing Passengers At The Gate
U.S. airlines may need to start weighing passengers in order to comply with FAA rules. For safety reasons, carriers need to calculate an aircraft’s weight and balance, and it has to be within allowable limits for the plane. However the assumptions they’ve been using for passengers are outdated. Americans are getting fatter, and the federal government wants airlines to find out how much fatter their passengers have gotten, at least for smaller aircraft. (viewfromthewing.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Couple years ago I was on some smallish CRJ variant for a flight to a city in the oil patch (west texas and into NM).
Usually passengers on any flight I get on look like a semi-random sampling of humanity; some young, some old, men, women, some big people and some very petite people.
I think there might have been one woman on the flight. The rest was all male, most of them in their late 20's to 50's, and all looking pretty much like what a stock photo search of "oil rig worker" would return: Large and muscular.
I gave W&B a bit of thought as everyone settled into the more-cramped-than-usual commuter jet, but I know that these are workers who make this flight either weekly, or every other week. I'm not a fan of commuter jets (esp when both people in the front office look like they'd get their ID checked at an R-rated movie), but I have to assume that with this being pretty much the default load for this route, the airline would have noticed if expensive puddle-jumpers were either unable to take off, or went into an uncontrollable nose-up.
When you have to trust in either competence or desire for management to keep their bonuses at 100%, count on management.
Usually passengers on any flight I get on look like a semi-random sampling of humanity; some young, some old, men, women, some big people and some very petite people.
I think there might have been one woman on the flight. The rest was all male, most of them in their late 20's to 50's, and all looking pretty much like what a stock photo search of "oil rig worker" would return: Large and muscular.
I gave W&B a bit of thought as everyone settled into the more-cramped-than-usual commuter jet, but I know that these are workers who make this flight either weekly, or every other week. I'm not a fan of commuter jets (esp when both people in the front office look like they'd get their ID checked at an R-rated movie), but I have to assume that with this being pretty much the default load for this route, the airline would have noticed if expensive puddle-jumpers were either unable to take off, or went into an uncontrollable nose-up.
When you have to trust in either competence or desire for management to keep their bonuses at 100%, count on management.
Not just the passengers but also their oversized suitcases that they carry on. Most are larger that the cases that I pay to check.
I think if the carry on has wheels, it must be too heavy to carry on. Check it.
With the newly designed bins on many planes being designed specifically to accomodate more wheelie bags, I think not only does the general public disagree with this, but the airlines seem to be totally on board with the idea of it.
You can always tell the frequent flyers, even if they have a to-the-limit bag, when it's time to get off the plane, they are like a ferrari pit crew member; stand up, grab the bag in one motion, slide it out, not clonk anyone on the head with it, and head for the door at full speed.
Infrequent flyers with just a simple sweater or a small carry-on are the ones that either slow things down, or give some poor seat-mate a concussion.
You can always tell the frequent flyers, even if they have a to-the-limit bag, when it's time to get off the plane, they are like a ferrari pit crew member; stand up, grab the bag in one motion, slide it out, not clonk anyone on the head with it, and head for the door at full speed.
Infrequent flyers with just a simple sweater or a small carry-on are the ones that either slow things down, or give some poor seat-mate a concussion.
I don’t know why those are allowed. My carry on is able to fit in their little test things at the gate so why can’t everyone else’s.
A comment here before I forget, I am thinking the airlines may be more concern about this from lost revenue (i.e. money) from reducing cargo / freight vs. paying passengers....
Using what public (Wikipedia) info I can find for a few representative aircraft here are how I figure (use your own numbers if you know better info) some numbers; also adjust the representative plane as you see fit:
Caravan: Capacity of nine passengers or 13 with FAR Part 23 waiver and Gross weight of 8,000 and Fuel capacity of 2,224 lb
ATR 42 (600): Seats 48 and Max TOW 41,005 lb and Fuel Capacity of 9,921 lb.
E175: seats 88 @ 29" and Max TOW 89,000 lbs. and Max Fuel of 20,580 lb
737 MAX (900): seats 193 (more typical number used here) and Max TOW 177,000–194,700 lb and Max Fuel of 6,853 US gal (6.8 lbs / gal 46,600 lbs )
A330 (300): Seats 300 (more typical number used here, though 440 listed as max) and Max TOW of 533,519 lb and Fuel capacity of 240,712 lb
Using a 10 lb. and 20 lb. adder per person at the listed capacity and comparing the percentage of this difference to the Max TOW weight for the aircraft yield the following percentages for WEIGHT only:
Caravan: 130 lbs. / 8,000 lbs = 1.63% and 260 lbs. / 8,000 lbs = 3.25%
ATR (600): 480 lbs. / 41,005. = 1.17% and 960 lbs. / 41,005 lbs. = 2.34%
E175: 880 lbs. / 89,000 lbs. = 0.99% and 1,760 lbs. / 89,000 = 1.98%
737 MAX (900): 1,930 lbs. / 177,000 = 1.09% and 3,860 / 177,000 = 2.18% (Note: lowest of MTOW range) or 1,930 / 194,700 lbs. = 0.99% and 3,860 / 194,700 lbs. = 1.98% (Note: highest of MTOW range)
A330 (300): 3000 lbs. / 533,519 lbs. = 0.56% and 6,000 lbs. / 533,519 lbs. = 1.12%
As demonstrated by this trend, any change increasing the AVERAGE weight of the passenger clearly impacts smaller aircraft (in general) significantly more. As I do not have info on the ARM used for any of the aircraft, but previously comment (correct me if I am wrong or if you have info provide it please…) about moving passengers just 1 row, the ARM will be far more impacted again on a smaller aircraft vs. a larger aircraft on where passengers sit. This also holds for the cargo (luggage and paying freight – money making for carriers); Silent Bob comment thinking….
What bugs me though, is the numbers I present here only has 3.25% as about the worse case scenario for adding 20 lbs. Now I know the change on the Caravan gets multiplied by the ARM will impact the CG far more vs. the other aircraft, by how much more I do not know. But just 3.25% makes me wonder about how accurate the rest of the weights (i.e. luggage, freight, food and drinks on board….) are estimated.
Would really like if someone has some ARM numbers and can provide some estimated / typical CG calculations with any change in passenger weights.