Transportation Safety Board of Canada Issues Air Safety Recommendations for Standard Passenger Weights Arising from the Investigation A04H0001 into the Fatal Crash of Georgian Express Flight 126 on January 17, 2004
GATINEAU, Quebec, Oct. 7 /CNW Telbec/ - The Transportation Safety Board
of Canada (TSB) today is issuing two recommendations concerning the use of
standard passenger weights by the Canadian air industry. These recommendations
arise from the TSB's ongoing investigation into last January's fatal crash of
Georgian Express Flight 126.
On January 17, 2004, Georgian Express Flight 126, a Cessna Caravan,
departed Pelee Island, Ontario, en route to Windsor, Ontario, at 4:38 p.m.
Shortly after take-off, the aircraft struck the ice-covered surface of Lake
Erie. The pilot and all nine passengers were killed.
To date, the TSB investigation has determined that the structure of the
aircraft was sound and the aircraft engine was operational and producing power
at the time of the flight. It has also determined that the aircraft was
overweight by 1270 pounds when it departed Pelee Island.
Standard Passenger Weights
In Canada, aircraft operators commonly rely on standard passenger
weights, published in the Aeronautical Information Publication
(A.I.P. Canada), to calculate total aircraft weight. Passenger weight is a
primary determinant of the total aircraft weight in passenger-carrying
operations.
Recent studies have shown that the current values for standard passenger
weights are no longer representative of the general population and that actual
passenger weights may be routinely underestimated. In the case of Georgian
Express Flight 126, the calculated weight for the people on board using
standard weight was 1833 pounds; the actual weight of the persons on board
with their clothes was 2400 pounds - a difference of 567 pounds.
Underestimating the weight of people on board can have a detrimental effect on
aircraft performance.
Based on its investigation to date, the Board concludes that the use of
actual weights for aircraft carrying nine passengers or fewer would provide a
greater margin of safety.
Recommendations
Therefore, the Board recommends that:
- The Department of Transport require that actual passenger weights be
used for aircraft involved in commercial or air taxi operations with a
capacity of nine passengers or fewer.
and A04-01
- The Department of Transport re-evaluate the standard weights for
passengers and carry-on baggage and adjust them for all aircraft to
reflect the current realities.
A04-02
The Department of Transport has 90 days to respond to the
recommendations.
Should the Board identify additional safety deficiencies in need of
urgent attention as its investigation proceeds, it may make further safety
recommendations. A final report will be published at the conclusion of its
investigation.
The TSB is an independent agency that investigates marine, pipeline,
railway and aviation transportation occurrences. Its sole aim is the
advancement of transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to
assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability.
This communiqué is available on the TSB Web site at http://www.tsb.gc.ca .
For further information: John Cottreau, Senior Media Relations Advisor,
(819) 994-8053, Cellular: (613) 292-4146; Ginette Thibodeau, Media Relations
Advisor, (819) 953-7812, Cellular: (613) 850-0738
TSB recommendations from GGN crash
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS
AVIATION ADVISORY CIRCULAR No. 0235
2004.10.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Operator Weight and Balance Control Procedures
Subparts 703/704/705 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations
INTRODUCTION
This Commercial & Business Aviation Advisory Circular (CBAAC) is to inform Canadian air operators that the average passenger weights as published in the Aeronautical Information Publication (A.I.P. Canada) will be revised January 20, 2005.
APPLICABILITY
This CBAAC is applicable to all air operators operating under Subparts 703/704/705 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs).
REFERENCES
Section 703.37 of the CARs and Section 723.37 of the Commercial Air Services Standards (CASS);
Section 704.32 of the CARs and Section 724.32 of the CASS;
Section 705.39 of the CARs and Section 725.39 of the CASS.
BACKGROUND
Many air operators under Subparts 703/704/705 of the CARs use the Standard Average Passenger Weight published in the A.I.P. Canada. This may result in inconsistencies between the aircraft weight on the weight and balance report and the actual weight of the aircraft once loaded.
Recent accidents, both in Canada and the United States (U.S.) have involved discrepancies between the actual weight and the weight recorded on the weight and balance report.
The Federal Aviation Administration has undertaken a review of the aircraft and passenger/cargo weight and balance guidance material in the U.S. and has recently released Advisory Circular AC 120-27D. This document provides guidance, and limitations on the use of standard average weights.
Transport Canada (TC) is reviewing the current standards for weight and balance control programs with a view to requiring the use of actual weights for all operations conducted under Subpart 3 of Part VII (703) of the CARs. Any proposed amendments to the CARs will be processed in accordance with the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council process.
In order to address the overall passenger weight issue in a timely fashion, TC has obtained average Canadian weight data from Statistics Canada. The Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.1, 2003, forms the basis for updating the average Canadian weights, as they will appear in the A.I.P. Canada.
TC requires the Company Operations Manual (COM) to be tailored to the individual air operator's type of Weight and Balance Control System and this program to be approved by the Principal Operations Inspector.
POLICY DEVELOPMENT / ACTION
The referenced regulations prohibit the operation of an aircraft unless the load restrictions, weight and centre of gravity of the aircraft conform to the limitations specified in the aircraft flight manual, during every phase of the flight.
The referenced standards provide a means of compliance with the regulation. The standard is not intended to provide relief from the regulations.
It is important to note that Sections 723.37/724.32/725.39 of the CASS states: "The weight and balance system required by Sections 703.37/704.32/705.39 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations shall specify for each flight how the air operator will establish and be responsible for the accuracy of: …
(3) weight of passengers, carry-on baggage and checked baggage, determined either by actual weight, by using approved standard weights or by using approved survey weights, and the actual weight of cargo. "
Based on the above, it is reasonable to expect air operators to have a means of ensuring that the method used to determine passenger weights for any flight will be accurate.
"The revisions to the A.I.P. Canada average passenger weights are summarized in the chart below. These weights will come into effect with the A.I.P. Canada amendment effective January 20, 2005. Operators using the A.I.P. Canada average weights are expected to amend their weight and balance systems to include the new average weights by no later than January 20, 2005."
(Note: These average weights are derived from a Statistics Canada Survey, Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.1, 2003)
Summer Winter
200 lbs or 90.7 kg MALES 12yrs up 206 lbs or 93.4 kg
165 lbs or 74.8 kg FEMALES 12yrs up 171 lbs or 77.5 kg
75 lbs or 34 kg CHILDREN 2-11yrs 75 lbs or 34kg
30 lbs or 13.6 kg *INFANTS 0 to less than 2yrs 30 lbs or 13.6 kg
* Add where infants exceed 10% of Adults
On any flight identified as carrying a number of passengers whose weights, including carry-on baggage will exceed the company approved standard weights, or the A.I.P. Canada published average weights, the actual weight of such passengers are to be used.
Canadian air operators are to use one of the following procedures to meet the weight and balance control requirements for commercial operations:
1- Actual Weights: Weigh each passenger prior to boarding. This will include all personal belongings and carry-on baggage, as well as any infant traveling with a passenger; or
2- Published Standard Weights: Air operators using approved standard weights that are based upon or derived from the Published A.I.P. Canada Standard Weights as shown in Section RAC 3.5 shall update their approved standard weights to match the amended A.I.P. Canada Published Standard Weight; or
3- Air Operator Standard Weights: Air operators seeking to, or currently using this system, shall be required to validate average weights, which shall include carry on personal items, through an approved passenger weight survey and statistical analysis. Air operators who have completed an approved survey within the review time frame stated in their COM shall be deemed to have met this requirement. Where a review period has not been specified in the COM, air operators who have not completed an approved survey within the past five years should complete a new survey, or move to option 1 or 2.
Note: Air operators are cautioned that when average passenger weights are used, (option 2 or 3 above) due diligence is required to ensure that the passenger weights used to calculate the passenger load accurately reflects the actual weights to be carried on any given flight.
FUTURE DISPOSITION
This CBAAC will remain in effect until further notice.
Michel Gaudreau
Director
Commercial & Business Aviation
AVIATION ADVISORY CIRCULAR No. 0235
2004.10.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Operator Weight and Balance Control Procedures
Subparts 703/704/705 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations
INTRODUCTION
This Commercial & Business Aviation Advisory Circular (CBAAC) is to inform Canadian air operators that the average passenger weights as published in the Aeronautical Information Publication (A.I.P. Canada) will be revised January 20, 2005.
APPLICABILITY
This CBAAC is applicable to all air operators operating under Subparts 703/704/705 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs).
REFERENCES
Section 703.37 of the CARs and Section 723.37 of the Commercial Air Services Standards (CASS);
Section 704.32 of the CARs and Section 724.32 of the CASS;
Section 705.39 of the CARs and Section 725.39 of the CASS.
BACKGROUND
Many air operators under Subparts 703/704/705 of the CARs use the Standard Average Passenger Weight published in the A.I.P. Canada. This may result in inconsistencies between the aircraft weight on the weight and balance report and the actual weight of the aircraft once loaded.
Recent accidents, both in Canada and the United States (U.S.) have involved discrepancies between the actual weight and the weight recorded on the weight and balance report.
The Federal Aviation Administration has undertaken a review of the aircraft and passenger/cargo weight and balance guidance material in the U.S. and has recently released Advisory Circular AC 120-27D. This document provides guidance, and limitations on the use of standard average weights.
Transport Canada (TC) is reviewing the current standards for weight and balance control programs with a view to requiring the use of actual weights for all operations conducted under Subpart 3 of Part VII (703) of the CARs. Any proposed amendments to the CARs will be processed in accordance with the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council process.
In order to address the overall passenger weight issue in a timely fashion, TC has obtained average Canadian weight data from Statistics Canada. The Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.1, 2003, forms the basis for updating the average Canadian weights, as they will appear in the A.I.P. Canada.
TC requires the Company Operations Manual (COM) to be tailored to the individual air operator's type of Weight and Balance Control System and this program to be approved by the Principal Operations Inspector.
POLICY DEVELOPMENT / ACTION
The referenced regulations prohibit the operation of an aircraft unless the load restrictions, weight and centre of gravity of the aircraft conform to the limitations specified in the aircraft flight manual, during every phase of the flight.
The referenced standards provide a means of compliance with the regulation. The standard is not intended to provide relief from the regulations.
It is important to note that Sections 723.37/724.32/725.39 of the CASS states: "The weight and balance system required by Sections 703.37/704.32/705.39 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations shall specify for each flight how the air operator will establish and be responsible for the accuracy of: …
(3) weight of passengers, carry-on baggage and checked baggage, determined either by actual weight, by using approved standard weights or by using approved survey weights, and the actual weight of cargo. "
Based on the above, it is reasonable to expect air operators to have a means of ensuring that the method used to determine passenger weights for any flight will be accurate.
"The revisions to the A.I.P. Canada average passenger weights are summarized in the chart below. These weights will come into effect with the A.I.P. Canada amendment effective January 20, 2005. Operators using the A.I.P. Canada average weights are expected to amend their weight and balance systems to include the new average weights by no later than January 20, 2005."
(Note: These average weights are derived from a Statistics Canada Survey, Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.1, 2003)
Summer Winter
200 lbs or 90.7 kg MALES 12yrs up 206 lbs or 93.4 kg
165 lbs or 74.8 kg FEMALES 12yrs up 171 lbs or 77.5 kg
75 lbs or 34 kg CHILDREN 2-11yrs 75 lbs or 34kg
30 lbs or 13.6 kg *INFANTS 0 to less than 2yrs 30 lbs or 13.6 kg
* Add where infants exceed 10% of Adults
On any flight identified as carrying a number of passengers whose weights, including carry-on baggage will exceed the company approved standard weights, or the A.I.P. Canada published average weights, the actual weight of such passengers are to be used.
Canadian air operators are to use one of the following procedures to meet the weight and balance control requirements for commercial operations:
1- Actual Weights: Weigh each passenger prior to boarding. This will include all personal belongings and carry-on baggage, as well as any infant traveling with a passenger; or
2- Published Standard Weights: Air operators using approved standard weights that are based upon or derived from the Published A.I.P. Canada Standard Weights as shown in Section RAC 3.5 shall update their approved standard weights to match the amended A.I.P. Canada Published Standard Weight; or
3- Air Operator Standard Weights: Air operators seeking to, or currently using this system, shall be required to validate average weights, which shall include carry on personal items, through an approved passenger weight survey and statistical analysis. Air operators who have completed an approved survey within the review time frame stated in their COM shall be deemed to have met this requirement. Where a review period has not been specified in the COM, air operators who have not completed an approved survey within the past five years should complete a new survey, or move to option 1 or 2.
Note: Air operators are cautioned that when average passenger weights are used, (option 2 or 3 above) due diligence is required to ensure that the passenger weights used to calculate the passenger load accurately reflects the actual weights to be carried on any given flight.
FUTURE DISPOSITION
This CBAAC will remain in effect until further notice.
Michel Gaudreau
Director
Commercial & Business Aviation
-
. ._
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7374
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Cowering in my little room because the Water Cooler is locked.
- Contact:
The accident down south was tragic. Not to make light of the subject by any means, but could this be an example of second hand obesity killing? Similar to second hand smoke?
Just an over-active mind hypothesizing.
If I haven't said it before, my condolences to the families and friends of the victims.
Who knows? Maybe new standard weights is a good idea that will save lives.
-istp
Just an over-active mind hypothesizing.
If I haven't said it before, my condolences to the families and friends of the victims.
Who knows? Maybe new standard weights is a good idea that will save lives.
-istp
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Aside form the overweight issue there was the issue of freezing rain prior to take off.
It will be interesting to see what the final analysis of this sad event will be.
Remember the reaction by TC after the Dryden crash?
One thing for sure, we will have more changes to the regulations to insure that TC is exempt from any accountability and the operators will have more regulation to try and comply with.
Eventually the regulations will be so conflicting and difficult to comply with we will just give up and go back to the horse and buggy.
Cat
It will be interesting to see what the final analysis of this sad event will be.
Remember the reaction by TC after the Dryden crash?
One thing for sure, we will have more changes to the regulations to insure that TC is exempt from any accountability and the operators will have more regulation to try and comply with.
Eventually the regulations will be so conflicting and difficult to comply with we will just give up and go back to the horse and buggy.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Its pretty easy to misjudge the weight if you don't have or don't use a scale. The passengers alone made up almost half of the error(567 of 1270 pounds).
I think the pilot just made too many assumptioins that day. He assumed the passenger weights, he probably assumed the baggage weight(went by 'feel'), and he may have aassumed that a little extra fuel won't hurt. Each on thier own are not that bad but by adding all this together you get a gross error.
The AIP standard weights have needed fixing for a long time now. Most people think i'm a stick, yet i'm only five pounds shy of the standard winter weight.
RAC 3.5
summer winter
182 *males 188
135 females 141
75 children 75
30 infants 30
HMMMM after looking that up, I never really took notice to the * in front of males.....
" * a group of large males, such as a football team, are to be accounted for seperatly at not less than 215 lbs each."
how many out there can actually say they do that
I think the pilot just made too many assumptioins that day. He assumed the passenger weights, he probably assumed the baggage weight(went by 'feel'), and he may have aassumed that a little extra fuel won't hurt. Each on thier own are not that bad but by adding all this together you get a gross error.
The AIP standard weights have needed fixing for a long time now. Most people think i'm a stick, yet i'm only five pounds shy of the standard winter weight.
RAC 3.5
summer winter
182 *males 188
135 females 141
75 children 75
30 infants 30
HMMMM after looking that up, I never really took notice to the * in front of males.....
" * a group of large males, such as a football team, are to be accounted for seperatly at not less than 215 lbs each."
how many out there can actually say they do that
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
I think that most of you are missing the probable cause here, is it not possible that the main contributing factor was the pressure to get the trip done for what ever reason and the freezing rain was ignored?
Overweight will not usually cause an airplane to crash once you get the thing airborne, but ice on the wings will.
I am not comfortable with disecting fatal crashes, however we must do so to learn from others mistakes.
Cat
Overweight will not usually cause an airplane to crash once you get the thing airborne, but ice on the wings will.
I am not comfortable with disecting fatal crashes, however we must do so to learn from others mistakes.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
It WAS the freezing rain!
And Cat, my good man, this is what TC WILL do about it:
Time line....3-5 years.
All nine seaters will become seven seaters.
Courses will be developed, and more inspectors hired to run them.
Many exams will be required...each year...because we all know we forget anything we're told after a whole year and therefore MUST be retrained!
Training will include: How to guess the weight of the FAT lady in row 3.
All outlying bases will require each pax to be weighed in..screw the expense!
And anything else they can think of, to protect us from ourselves and create employment for minorities in YOW!
And Cat, my good man, this is what TC WILL do about it:
Time line....3-5 years.
All nine seaters will become seven seaters.
Courses will be developed, and more inspectors hired to run them.
Many exams will be required...each year...because we all know we forget anything we're told after a whole year and therefore MUST be retrained!
Training will include: How to guess the weight of the FAT lady in row 3.
All outlying bases will require each pax to be weighed in..screw the expense!
And anything else they can think of, to protect us from ourselves and create employment for minorities in YOW!
Crap, all we need, more regulations. It's so easy to rally under the banner of safety and ignore other, very real issues. Potentially, small operators are going to be required to weigh each and every passenger. With today's society being weight conscious (not necessarily doing anything about it - but self-conscious anyway) here is another big friction point for customer service. Small operators live on the benefit of quick, easy, convenient service. Now folks are going to stopped, weighed and potentially denied access to the plane because they are too "big". How's that going to go over? Coming to an apron near you - Friday Night at the Fights.
Also, what's the betting on whether or not the weighing will have to be done in private to protect people's dignity - which means added expense and in many remote locations almost impossibility.
It will also intoduce the spectre of great risk and promote distrust of aviation in small planes - "Oh migod - this thing can fall out of the sky simply because I supersized the fries??"
Once more we are on the cusp of bullshit regulation under the unassailable guise of safety.
Also, what's the betting on whether or not the weighing will have to be done in private to protect people's dignity - which means added expense and in many remote locations almost impossibility.
It will also intoduce the spectre of great risk and promote distrust of aviation in small planes - "Oh migod - this thing can fall out of the sky simply because I supersized the fries??"
Once more we are on the cusp of bullshit regulation under the unassailable guise of safety.
What burns my arse about this is simple. We've been KILLING people in the north on overweight airplanes for years. EVERYBODY knows this to be a FACT! And, while I think an increase in standard weights is way overdoo, somebody had to die in SOUTHERN ONTARIO before TC got off their duffs and did something they should have done years ago!
But, as in Dryden, they'll now go way overboard with new regs, courses, training films etc....and we still get guys departing in freezing rain. And the overweight flights will continue....as they always have (dont even think of telling me YOU've never done it)...and as always, it'll be the pilot, not the company who presssured him into it...that'll pay the price...and the fines!
But, as in Dryden, they'll now go way overboard with new regs, courses, training films etc....and we still get guys departing in freezing rain. And the overweight flights will continue....as they always have (dont even think of telling me YOU've never done it)...and as always, it'll be the pilot, not the company who presssured him into it...that'll pay the price...and the fines!
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Just think of the possibilities here troops.
Now all pilots can be brainwashed in human factors that will include training to better understand the underlying causes that caused all these overweight people to become overweight.
Remember we as a caring society cannot be PC "incorrect" and make these people feel insecure, hell no we will be trained in how to be PC and not hurt others feelings........There will be training in how to explain to overweight people that they do not have to submit to the indignity of being weighed, hell no they can refuse and find some other means of transportation.
Ya just gotta love these guys in TC that run this business.
Cat
Now all pilots can be brainwashed in human factors that will include training to better understand the underlying causes that caused all these overweight people to become overweight.
Remember we as a caring society cannot be PC "incorrect" and make these people feel insecure, hell no we will be trained in how to be PC and not hurt others feelings........There will be training in how to explain to overweight people that they do not have to submit to the indignity of being weighed, hell no they can refuse and find some other means of transportation.
Ya just gotta love these guys in TC that run this business.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
I have spent a bit of time flying the caravan (3000 hours)and the one thing that no one has said is that the MAX TO WT for flight into known icing is 8500 Lbs that is 562 less than max (9062) so to make 9 fat hunters and there dead animals you would have to use standerd wts just to get it all in in one trip. so we need to look at who booked the plane. should have been 2 planes or 1 bigger one.
-
scubasteve
- Rank 5
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:05 pm
- Location: BC
- Contact:
hmmm interesting point there.
What upsets me is reading multiple stories where it is stated that the pilot used out of date weight numbers. Now, it is true that the numbers need to be changed but that puts extra blame on the pilot. He used legal numbers but it seems from the stories that he used the wrong numbers. IE it appears as if the numbers had been changed and he used the old ones.
I also think its important that the public knows the role that the weather and the freezing rain played. I dont think the average person realizes how much weather changes things...maybe make them think twice about pressuring pilots into flying in bad weather or reduce the complaints.
What upsets me is reading multiple stories where it is stated that the pilot used out of date weight numbers. Now, it is true that the numbers need to be changed but that puts extra blame on the pilot. He used legal numbers but it seems from the stories that he used the wrong numbers. IE it appears as if the numbers had been changed and he used the old ones.
I also think its important that the public knows the role that the weather and the freezing rain played. I dont think the average person realizes how much weather changes things...maybe make them think twice about pressuring pilots into flying in bad weather or reduce the complaints.
Air Canada (or was it Westjet) were taking to court by a lawyer from Calgary who felt she was discriminated against because the airline tried to make her buy 2 seats because she was so big and fat that she demanded and took up 2 seats. Can you imagine how a small operator would stand up if this obese person was made to fly in a Cessna 208 because she was too large for the usual Cessna 206. This will always be a problem that we as pilots cannot fix properly until the issue is addressed in our laws and by the liberal interpetation allowed in the certification standards for our airplanes. One thing we as pilots are doing on a regular basis is adapting airplanes for missions they were never designed for. Just look at the medevac airplanes. How many airplanes are designed specifically as an air ambulance. The King Air 200 is one of the best but it still is a make shift affair. Now look at the old Turbo Dildo. The Metroliner was designed as a convertable passenger/cargo airplane and it is very easy to convert back and forth all the while dotting every I and crossing every T except one. There is no cabin fire/smoke detection systems. It would be cost prohibitive and always keep one very important fact in mind. SAFETY is not NUMBER 1, PROFITABILITY is NUMBER 1. SAFETY is further down the food chain and even futher down the list with the unprincipaled operators. Why do operators like FEDEX and UPS have excellent safety record against the rest of us? They are profitable enterprises. Just look at the controversy over Highway 22x in south Calgary. A dangerous piece of highway that needs fixing to make it safe but we have not killed enough people on that piece of road yet to make it economically viable to improve. With the Peele crash, NIMBY comes into play. Do not kill politicians and do not have spectacular accidents in politician's back yards. Now if a provincial MLA gets killed in a car crash on that highway, it could potentially become one of the safest pieces of road in the province. I will bet Ontario has the same problems and B.C is beyond hope. I hear and I feel for those who refuse a load because it is too heavy or dangerous only to have the competetion accept and do the trip. We will be faced with this problem as long as the American airframe manufacturers insist that a person weighs 170 lbs and jet fuel weighs 6.7 lbs per gallon.
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
Here is the "decision" from the CTA...oldtimer wrote:Air Canada (or was it Westjet) were taking to court by a lawyer from Calgary who felt she was discriminated against because the airline tried to make her buy 2 seats because she was so big and fat that she demanded and took up 2 seats.
Decision No. 567-AT-A-2002Decision No. 567-AT-A-2002
October 23, 2002
APPLICATION by Linda McKay-Panos pursuant to subsections 172(1) and (3) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, concerning the seating accommodation that she was provided with by Air Canada on flights operated between Calgary, Alberta, and Ottawa, Ontario, in August 1997, and Air Canada's policy of imposing higher fares to accommodate passengers who require additional seating space due to obesity.
.....
Conclusion
For the above reasons, I conclude that Ms. McKay-Panos has a disability for the purposes of Part V of the CTA. Accordingly, I would have considered the remaining issues of whether she encountered obstacles and, if so, whether these obstacles were undue.
Decision No. 646-AT-A-2001
Patter it was good to know ya because with that type of thinking you will not be around long.
as for the wrong weights that were used I look in my AIP and I still see 182 summer 188 winter and 135 144 so what was he going to use.
Flying into crapy wx last week we had a couple of bad days and the office was the first to call and put all the flights on hold we had good alt. but the place that we wanted to go had -FZRA -SN BR I think that some places are starting to see that one crash will wipe out the hole place.
as for the wrong weights that were used I look in my AIP and I still see 182 summer 188 winter and 135 144 so what was he going to use.
Flying into crapy wx last week we had a couple of bad days and the office was the first to call and put all the flights on hold we had good alt. but the place that we wanted to go had -FZRA -SN BR I think that some places are starting to see that one crash will wipe out the hole place.
Re: TSB recommendations from GGN crash
I dpn't know if planes of pass cap <10 are more sensitive to over weight or c.g. imbalances than larger planes, but I find it utterly amazing that in the year 2005 .... heck in the year 1945 !!!, that actual weights, even using a cheap bathroom scale have not ALWAYS been used ... for all aircraft sizes ! Even the cheap scale has to be better than an estimate, and is not going to be off by 1,000 lbs. True, for cargo, or "dead animals" you're gonna need something better ... and probably for the passengers as well, i.e. a TC "approved" scale (9.95 Can Tire Scale + TC sticker = 99.95 ... 999.95 ????), but whatver the cost, it should be just part of the operational costs. It's just utterly ridiculous not to know within a few lbs with todays' technology of the total weight of an a.c.Disco Stu wrote:.
Based on its investigation to date, the Board concludes that the use of
actual weights for aircraft carrying nine passengers or fewer would provide a greater margin of safety.
Therefore, the Board recommends that:
- The Department of Transport require that actual passenger weights be
used for aircraft involved in commercial or air taxi operations with a
capacity of nine passengers or fewer.
As for the icing, maybe compay pressure / competition had an influence, but I wonder if *anybody* else would have really flown that afternoon.
ms
I thought we were supposed to be using the new weights as of october. When an Advisory circular is issued does it become part of CARS or it it not in place until the AIP/ CARS are ammended?
Mach .28 wrote:COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS
AVIATION ADVISORY CIRCULAR No. 0235
2004.10.07
(Note: These average weights are derived from a Statistics Canada Survey, Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.1, 2003)
Summer Winter
200 lbs or 90.7 kg MALES 12yrs up 206 lbs or 93.4 kg
165 lbs or 74.8 kg FEMALES 12yrs up 171 lbs or 77.5 kg
75 lbs or 34 kg CHILDREN 2-11yrs 75 lbs or 34kg
30 lbs or 13.6 kg *INFANTS 0 to less than 2yrs 30 lbs or 13.6 kg
* Add where infants exceed 10% of AdultsFUTURE DISPOSITION
This CBAAC will remain in effect until further notice.
Michel Gaudreau
Director
Commercial & Business Aviation
First off.
Passengers are effectively cargo. I think all should pay by the pound. If you are one fat ass, you pay more because you are using more of the useful load of the plane.
As for the standard weights, can anyone here actually say that the old weights accurately represented the weights of most passengers flown?(Around in the north in the smaller aircraft where overgross margins are way more narrow. Show me a chip that weighs 135 lbs.)
Flying should be a privilege, not a right.
Passengers are effectively cargo. I think all should pay by the pound. If you are one fat ass, you pay more because you are using more of the useful load of the plane.
As for the standard weights, can anyone here actually say that the old weights accurately represented the weights of most passengers flown?(Around in the north in the smaller aircraft where overgross margins are way more narrow. Show me a chip that weighs 135 lbs.)
Flying should be a privilege, not a right.
-
Flying Low
- Rank 8
- Posts: 928
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
- Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?
Do you get a lot of extremely heavy chips where you are?????(Around in the north in the smaller aircraft where overgross margins are way more narrow. Show me a chip that weighs 135 lbs.)
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."
Careful there--yuo are making enormous assumptions about the pilot and situation in question!As for the icing, maybe compay pressure / competition had an influence, but I wonder if *anybody* else would have really flown that afternoon.
He was an experienced and competant pilot and you have absolutely NO WAY of knowing the situation. Looking at METARS for the given period does not accurately show the conditions. He may well have taken off in clear air only to fly into freezing rain etc etc etc etc etc.
You get the point.
Armchair quaterbacking is nothing short of pathetic.
