CAR 703 No More Standard Weights Effective End of July

[single_swine_herder]

Just wondering how your companies are dealing with the Standard Weights being banned from use in CAR 703 operations at the end of July?

You'll be required to use actual weights as measured by a scale prior to boarding the aircraft, segmented weights. For aircraft such as the Beech 200, there are no segmented weights published, so that option is out.....leaving only actual weights as the acceptable way of doing business effective August 1, 2012.

This applies to CAR 703 ONLY. No effect on 704 or 705 AOC holders.

The only alternative is to accept volunteered weights provided by the person, or for the pilot to estimate the person's weight. There is a problem with the latter ... pilots must be trained in the art and science of weight guessing. An Ops Manual amendment is required describing the new system, and the training program. This must be accomplished by August 1 or be non-compliant.

So CAR 703 operators, how are you dealing with this?

As an FYI, here is the link to the requirement in the form of the Advisory Circular, and the CASS 723.37 (3) has been amended June 30, 2012.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... 4-1436.htm

Bye bye standard weights. Hello extra fuel stops enroute.

[trey kule]

Bye bye standard weights. Hello extra fuel stops enroute.

If changing from using standard weights to actual weights means extra fuel stops enroute, then I am sure you must understand why the change was necessary...

[Meatservo]

I've been trying to guess what ladies weigh just by looking at 'em for decades. I suppose I could do the same thing for dudes.

I wonder what they teach in the training program? Double chin, that's an extra twenty pounds. "Gunt"? That's fourty. Wrap-around boobs? A bad case of shovel-butt or moose-knuckle? Fifty or sixty. All of the above earns you an extra seat and no carry-on. "Excuse me, sir, but on a scale of one to ten, how much of your wang can you see over your gut?" I can't wait to start implementing this!

[Jack In The Box]

Wait...wut? We are getting rid of standard weights for CAR 703??

(don't flame me, I opened that article but am not a lawyer...)

[Changes in Latitudes]

I've been trying to guess what ladies weigh just by looking at 'em for decades. I suppose I could do the same thing for dudes.

I wonder what they teach in the training program? Double chin, that's an extra twenty pounds. "Gunt"? That's fourty. Wrap-around boobs? A bad case of shovel-butt or moose-knuckle? Fifty or sixty. All of the above earns you an extra seat and no carry-on. "Excuse me, sir, but on a scale of one to ten, how much of your wang can you see over your gut?" I can't wait to start implementing this!

Ok enough, I can't take it.

[Sleeve of Wizard]

I think this is going to swing the other way if pilots are now "estimating" passenger weights.

The person who used to be 193 standard weight will be put down as 170 lbs...

[FL280]

.

[Siddley Hawker]

145 lbs. Slap her on the ass and say "Hop onboard Honey."

[2R]

She said she weighed 110 .I am guessing she meant Kgs or cubits cause it ain't in poundage

[freezerburn31]

The company I currently work for already uses actual weights with a scale, so it's not an issue for us.

[sky's the limit]

You guys make weighing things sound like a revolutionary concept.

Mr. Customer, meet Mr. Scale... SImple, yet effective.

I had a 310lb skier this season (with boots and gear), that one hurt a bit!

[2R]

Who is responsible if the seat that was designed for a FAA seat weight of 170 lbs collapses under the weight of some of the larger passengers ?
TC must be aware by now that some of these seats where never designed for people who weigh almost twice what the FAA used during certification of the aircraft.
Kinda like a number nine stretcher being used for a pax weighing four hundred pounds.If the stretcher collapses and the pax is injured.Who pays ?
WCB say we should not be lifting more than forty pounds,So if a 400 lb pax arrives should we not have ten people to lift that patient ?
The seatbelts where also certified by the FAA using 170 pounds as a standard weight .If we are supposed to supply a seatbelt that is fit for purpose should we be re-enforcing the seat belt ancors points and installing seatbelts rated for those whose idea of a light snack is a bucket of chicken,a dozen donuts and washed down with four tubes of pop.

[North Shore]

^Indeed! At the place where Meatservo and I used to work, we had an industrial scale - no individual embarrassment over weight issues. 8 turkeys once showed up for their fishing charter; "on the scale, boys," says I. 2480lbs replied the scale! The 'small' guy was ~ 250, the big one, about 6'3", and 400+!

I'm inclined to agree with Wizard on this - people *will* underestimate pax weights.

Also, the whole concept of 'average weights' needs a bit of a re-think anyway, IMHO. Including 12 year-olds as adults skews the average downwards - except for holidays, one almost never sees kids on planes.

[trey kule]

Maybe my old mind is playing tricks, but I always thought that in 703 if a pax was notably different than the standard, you were to use acutal weights....
One only has to read some of the posts here..I get the feeling it is nudge nudge, wink wink when it comes to weights. Almost a sense of bragging.
Which explains why the solution should be the use of a scale..And I am aware that scales are a bit in short supply at fishing camps....which is where the whole matter of trust and pilot responsability comes in. And judging by some of the posts, trusting some pilots to accurately judge weights is a bit misplaced.
I expect the training required is so that a pilot wont claim they just made an small error in judgment when they were overloading the plane.
We used to have a saying...we get paid by the mile not the pound....Seems there are still companies , and worse pilots, that dont think weight is a big issue until after the accident. I thought the days of bragging about how overloaded you could fly a beaver or a navajo were long over..Seems I was wrong.
The reason for more and more regulations falls entirely on the pilots who have continued to ignore weight limitations,
Maybe the new regulations will help a bit.

[StudentPilot]

Use a larger scale at your bases. Carry a scale for loading away from base. Passengers and freight go on the scale and then into the plane. Problem solved. Why is this a big deal? If it affects your flight operations at all it just means TC has failed to enforce regulations (as per normal) and you got lucky...now you can do it right in the future.

Edit: Having now read the circular, they aren't really getting rid of "standard weights" unless the plane is certified for 1-4 passengers, just using a more accurate method and weights after they did some statistical analysis and giving it a new name. Using these numbers, your passenger weight will be at 101% or less of their actual weight 95% of the time. Carrying a scale and using actual weights would net you more payload on the vast majority of flights.

[BEFAN5]

Where does it say end of July? The effective date on this is 2011-11-30?

[Bushav8er]

What got me was I was reading that advisory on June 21st and it was dated June 30th!?

It comes into effect after the CARs sections (723.37(3)) is amended.

There is also a whole highlighted section in the AIM covering this (which TC recently told me is wrong; some of the segments weights don't work as advertised and an amendment is coming).

Another method I read somewhere was for operators to establish a survey of their own which, if I recall correctly, must be an 'approved and qualified' survey. They then may use the info derived from this survey as their 'standard weights'.

Of note for those that misread it, the segments weights are based on aircraft seating CAPACITY not seats used, in other words, for example, a Beaver is insured for and only uses the 4 passenger seats (5) but was certified for 7 (8) you must use the 8 for weight and balance figures.

Who is responsible if the seat that was designed for a FAA seat weight of 170 lbs collapses under the weight of some of the larger passengers ?
TC must be aware by now that some of these seats where never designed for people who weigh almost twice what the FAA used during certification of the aircraft.

- good point. Maybe operators should state that any person over the max weight capacity of the seat is not permitted on the aircraft and therefore 'our' standard weight is XXXlbs.

[Beefitarian]

I've been trying to guess what ladies weigh just by looking at 'em for decades. I suppose I could do the same thing for dudes.

I wonder what they teach in the training program? Double chin, that's an extra twenty pounds. "Gunt"? That's fourty. Wrap-around boobs? A bad case of shovel-butt or moose-knuckle? Fifty or sixty. All of the above earns you an extra seat and no carry-on. "Excuse me, sir, but on a scale of one to ten, how much of your wang can you see over your gut?" I can't wait to start implementing this!

Ok enough, I can't take it.

Somebody give meat some gold stars for that one.

[rapid602]

Trey Kule ... You always have a nice polite way of using your verbich to make a point. I enjoy reading your posts...

Thanks for posting this thread ... I did not hear about this. ... Thanks Guys.

[AOW]

Here is my interpretation of the segmented weights system, using the numbers supplied by TC, and broken down into 5, 6-8, and 9-11 seat aircraft (I didn't bother including more than 9 pax, since that would be beyond the scope of part 703), and each type is broken down into summer/winter, and with or without carry on included in the weights.

9-11 Seats

Segmented Weights_Page_1.jpg (441.49 KiB) Viewed 3095 times

6-8 Seats

Segmented Weights_Page_2.jpg (386.9 KiB) Viewed 3095 times

5 Seats

Segmented Weights_Page_3.jpg (244.27 KiB) Viewed 3095 times

Is this how the rest of you interpret this?

[Indanao]

It seems they have increased the weight of a , " standard " passenger at the same time.

[The Weasel]

You guys make weighing things sound like a revolutionary concept.

Mr. Customer, meet Mr. Scale... SImple, yet effective.

For some, it is revolutionary, I guess. We've had actual weight requirements for helicopters for several years now. IIRC it goes back to an Alberta forestry requirement due to an incident many years back. For our company, it's trickled down as an SOP across the board (not just for forestry) and we have weigh scales at every base. It ain't rocket science...

[scoops]

Does transport actually look at revised weight and balances of aircrafts? After upgrading my avionics according to the paper we should have lost about 30lbs (no new actual weight and balance was required, just paper) . I new something wasn't right after a few flights so I had new actual weight and balance done. After doing an actual weight and balance (scale just recalibrated) found out we gained 400lbs. I guess the previous owner decided they could use "standard" weights since they just shaved off 400lbs actual empty weight of off aircraft. Looking at all the previous weight and balances the new empty weight is very close to every weight but the last owners!?
You would think transport would actually question such a huge weight change on a Chieftain. Like purchasing a used car I think a safety and new weight and balance should be standard. Is anything in place with change of ownership?

I refuse to knowinlgy fly overweight and always have enough fuel for IFR alternate but if using an empty weight that is not accurate what are you supposed to do? I'm fortunate I found out on the ground and not with a full load (400lbs overweight) in the air on a single engine. There is no excuse for something like this. Even if their scales were off you would logically think something wrong with such a change from previous weight (with only taking out a 23lb a/c compressor) and reweigh.

As far as using actual weights, why not? Being Lazy or embarassment of passengers? What about safety?
It is easier for me since I have the same pool of passengers and baggage weights so have an excel spreadsheet on all of them.

[spongebob]

What are operators using aircraft that are certified for more than 11 seats but are operating 703 (9 passenger seat configuration) doing? The segmentated weights are not to be applied for aircraft certified with more than 11 seats (as the circular said) and 703 operations are no longer allowed to use standard weights.

What are Metro/King Air operators going to do? Use actual weights when a Navajo can use segmentated weights??

[Edo]

AOW those tables look good, the even account for the male/female ratio. Funny how the table in the appendix A of the circular does not state that carry on is included, you have to reference section 4.3 for that.

I guess it would have been too easy for TC to publish a table like yours.