Standard Weights

GARRETT · Post by **GARRETT** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:47 pm

Does anyone else here agree with me that standard weights are a joke. You guys and gals who fly passengers out of Sh!thole Lake or Fort Poppenchips know that these people weigh at least 10-20% more than the standard and yet we still put then down as 135 & 182 Lbs. They are really like 200+ Lbs. for either sex! This is something that I think will have to change. How much blood do you think will have to be spilled before TC steps up and makes some changes?

Longtimer · Post by **Longtimer** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:49 pm

GARRETT wrote:Does anyone else here agree with me that standard weights are a joke. You guys and gals who fly passengers out of Sh!thole Lake or Fort Poppenchips know that these people weigh at least 10-20% more than the standard and yet we still put then down as 135 & 182 Lbs. They are really like 200+ Lbs. for either sex! This is something that I think will have to change. How much blood do you think will have to be spilled before TC steps up and makes some changes?

Transport Canada has acted on this one today:

No. H055/04
For release October 7, 2004

TRANSPORT MINISTER REACTS TO
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD INTERIM
RECOMMENDATIONS ON PELEE ISLAND ACCIDENT
OTTAWA - Transport Minister Jean-C. Lapierre today acknowledged receipt of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada's interim recommendations concerning Georgian Express flight 0126, which crashed off the western shore of Pelee Island, Ontario on January 17, 2004.

"I would like to acknowledge the work of the Transportation Safety Board during the investigation into this tragic accident," said Mr. Lapierre. "Transport Canada fully supports the intent of the recommendations and will review the information provided today."

The following recommendations have been issued:

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.
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.
To protect the public, there are strict regulations that require air operators to have a Transport Canada-approved weight and balance system in place. Air operators and pilots are required to ensure that the aircraft weight and balance remain within approved limits and to ensure that, for example, heavier individuals are accounted for accurately in the total passenger weight.

Actual weight is calculated based on the weight of each passenger on a given flight, while standard weights are based on average Canadians' weights.

Following the accident, Transport Canada initiated a comprehensive review of standard weights. This review has been completed and the current average weights and carry-on baggage weights will be amended. The revised weights are as follows:

Males over 12 years of age = 206 lbs in winter and 200 lbs in summer (13 lb increase)

Females over 12 years of age = 171 lbs in winter and 165 lbs in summer (25 lb increase)

These weight changes include a 5 lb increase per passenger for carry-on baggage.

Operators will be advised of this change immediately through a Commercial and Business Aviation Advisory Circular with the amended weight requirement. These advisories are intended to provide information and guidance regarding operational matters to appropriate stakeholders, including air operators and pilots.

The weight amendments will also be officially published in an upcoming issue of the Aeronautical Information Publication. Although the new requirements officially come into effect on January 20, 2005, Transport Canada expects that operators will voluntarily comply with the amendments in the interim.

-30-

Contact:
Irène Marcheterre
Director of Communications
Minister's Office
(613) 991-0700

GARRETT · Post by **GARRETT** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:54 pm

Way to go TC!! Thanks for the info. Longtimer.

Big_Oaf · Post by **Big_Oaf** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:02 am

it's about bloody time

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:02 am

It's a good thing they've made some changes. Only WHY cant they use round figures???? Quick now everybody, what's 18 times 206? Why not 210???? Typical TC!
And a SIX pound increase for winter???? Anybody tossed a pair of Sorels and a Snow Goose on a scale lately?
And five pounds for carry-on??? Has TC ever actually watched what people stuff into the overhead bins??? Who comes up with these numbers? While I think it's a good move in the right direction...again, it isn't quite far enough.

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:13 am

Doc, you have made an excellent point - the people who determine these numbers are basing it on their carry-on laptops for flights to Ottawa to rack up big expenses drinking vintage wines in fine restaurants!

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:14 am

Perhaps somebody should clarify what exactly is meant by the 5 lb increase in carry-on baggage before getting excited - since the current allowance for carry-on baggage is 8 lbs, perhaps the 5lbs is actually added to the 8 lbs. There is no reference to this number in CBAAC 0235.
Comments?
Cheers,
Snoopy

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:14 am

It is a five pound increase in carry-on luggage. Added to the eight pounds already included that comes to thirteen (13) pounds doc

. Oh and eighteen multiplied by two hundred and six is eighteen times two hundred plus eighteen times six, or three thousand six hundred plus one hundred and eight. Which is three thousand seven hundred and eight. I doubt anyone who cannot figure out 18 x 206 in less than five seconds can figure out 18 x 200 without a calculator anyway

.

canadian_bacon · Post by **canadian_bacon** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:05 pm

If you were against the standard weights in the past, and still are, why use them? Obviously if a passenger looks well over standard you should use the actual weight.

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:12 pm

Exactly. No one is forced to use standard weights.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:44 pm

Well, actually you ARE forced to use standard weights. If you have 66 pax, and the FA hands you the M/F split...and you bend the airplane..well you'd better have a pretty good line ready for the NTSB when they ask you how you figured the pax weights. And YOU know this.

Capt · Post by **Capt** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:55 pm

up north we switch the fem and male weights around.

I'd Rather Be Flying · Fri Oct 08, 2004 3:12 pm

If an obviously overweight passenger (more than the standard weight published), walks through the door to get on board one of our aircraft, I will personally ask for their weight. Or have them stand on a scale.

It's the PIC's responsibility to make sure the aircraft is properly loaded and within C of G range as well as under gross for departure.

It's your life on the line if you pile it in. And your passengers lives. And if you do survive, your career is in peril if TC comes knocking (which they most certainly will).

Fly smart. Fly safe.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:41 pm

Has anyone ever gone up to a passenger, especially a rotund female one, and asked her what she weighs? I would think many will say, "none of your business" and you would say it definatly is my business and the shitting match would be on. I wonder who would win. The passenger, you or the ops manager?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 5:08 pm

Oldtimer :

Lets go a little further with this............

Suppose the passenger complained and the Ops Manager backed her up, but the Chief Pilot stepped in and defended your position.

Who in this senario would have the more authority, the Ops Manager or the Chief Pilot?

Cat

jackrabbit · Post by **jackrabbit** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:39 pm

Maybe somebody could clarify this something for me. Once when I was ramped the TC inspector specifically asked what I was using for weights. I told him I was using standard weights and then commented that one of m passengers obviously weighed about 300 lbs. Well, as the sweat began to run down my forhead, I calmy showed him that using standard weights we were still 400 lbs under gross so there was lots of room for him, even though his added girth wasn't part of my hastily created W&B. Anyway, that satisfied him but asked what was written in our ops manual (which is standard weights are allowed to be used on all flights). He walked away (whew). I guess my question is, if it is written in the Ops manual, certified by transport of course, can they say anything if they think I don't weight 174 lbs?
Also, if I bumped pax because of weight and I wasn't using standard weights, I would probably get a call from the owner, ops man, and CP asking why I wasn't using them. This company, operating in the north is from the good old days where flying overweight was the rule rather than the silent exception. Everyone knows damn well the plane will fly. That doesn't make it right but if you looked at the load controls, they would all be under gross, even though you had 15 fatties on board. I'm extemely happy for this change but I know my trips won't change. I'm not looking forward to having to explain to my clients that a trip I did last week and was 'safe' cannot be done now beacuse everyone gained 25 lbs and I have to write it down now. Not very much fun but it will be interesting!! God I love this job

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:47 pm

Pissing matches aside, i still think using passenger reported weights - while perhaps better than standard weights - is not a solution. Hell you would be better off eyeballing. But i doubt anyone would unload 100 pounds of baggage after coming up with an eyeball figure for probable weights. They would just revise the estimate, and we are back to start.

I find it hard to believe that the industry cannot come up with a simple scale that people stand on on their way to the airplane, which would display the weight at a remote station and keep a running total. In fact, a quick google shows dozens of them, many for around $300.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:55 pm

Even more simple would be airplanes that weigh themselves.

At least you would know the gross take off weight.

And it is not all that difficult for the manufacturers to install in the airplanes.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 6:23 am

Cat,
The drag of it is that of course the Ops Manager wins and the CP has very little authority within the CARS. Which is why there should be stricter requirements for Ops Managers - ie not allowing some guy's wife, who has no technical/pilot/safety/ quantifiable aviation management experience to be Ops Manager.

Jackrabbit,
The purpose of average weights, is just that - an average. Which means that the number provided should be a true average weight of the North American populous. TC is finally addressing the fact that NA are growing in girth size and that the current numbers are not accurate.
When you have an accurate "average" number, it doesn't matter if you have one or two "heavies" and a couple of "skinnies" - it all works itself out under the averaging system. Where you as a pilot are supposed to take action is if the majority of passengers are larger than average, then you should use either actual weight or the "football player" number in the AIP. Unfortunately, operators and pilots alike have taken advantage of the underweight Standard Weight in order to make loads legal on paper.
While actual weights would be the best solution, this is often not logistically possible in places like say, outpost camps, tent camps or field survey sites. The option in the Ops manual should be actual weights first, standard weights when actual weights not available.
Cheers,
Snoopy

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 7:24 am

There's a reason Japan Air orders more seats in their Boeings than American!

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 7:47 am

Snoop :

Actually in a fair world the Chief Pilot has final authority with regard to flight safety.

However in the real world they have little if any authority due to the politics involved, if a Chief Pilot wishes to assert his / her authority they can and mostlikely will be over ruled by management aided and abetted by TC.

However it can be done, many years ago I decided to push the issue to shut down an operator who was ignoring the rules big time.

TC refused to back me up, so finally I went to the RCMP and laid charges through Federal court against both the operator and TC.

I won my case, lost my job but retained my intregity and self worth.

It is all recorded somewhere, the year was 1974 and the company was Air West Airlines in Vancouver.

If the Director General Civil Aviation from those days is still alive, he will remember, I can gurantee you he will remember because he ultimately was the end of the chain of responsibility and I had to use a Federal Court to ensure that the law be upheld. The D.G. was not a happy camper in the final analisys.

So the Chief Pliot can enforce Federal Law even if TC wont.

Sadly though not many Chief Pilots will due to the high personal cost involved.

Should any chief Pilot require more information on how I managed to get that done and wishes to check with the law firm who reprsented me and my pilots, just contact me.

Cat

scubasteve · Post by **scubasteve** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 8:45 am

Even the new weights might not be enough. Being unemployed means I get to see a fair amount of tv and on Maury yesterday and there was a 2 year old at 72 pounds and a 4 year old at 140!!!! might be seeing tundra tires on the A3XX

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:49 pm

JC Ahramin,

what is a pissing match anyway? In the snow I can write my full name and underline it 3 times. Sometimes I draw a big Jack-o-Lantern happy face.

Tube Driver · Post by **Tube Driver** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:12 pm

Cat Driver;

Since when would a chief pilot take the side of a pilot over the Ops Manager. When push comes to shove the C.P. knows who his boss is and who has the power to fire him, if not today then over some other trivial incident. At the end of the day it is up to the Captain to decide which course of action to take and to be prepared to face the consequences.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:22 pm

Tube Driver :

Precisely, that is how the system works.

Then why have chief pilots?

However if you examine it closely you will find that the Chief Pilot does have the responsibility to ensure safety....on paper...that is.

Who thought up the idea that an ops manager who may not have a clue about what is safe and what is not has the power to prevent a Chief Pilot from enforcing the regulations?

The whole system is a joke.

Cat

Standard Weights

Standard Weights

Re: Standard Weights