Standard passenger weights and overloading planes

[Laxputs]

When loading an airplane, a pilot is allowed to use standard male and female passenger weights. On a small plane if a few people are significantly over the standard weight, the plane will be overloaded. Obviously this brings into question safety issues, but my question is whether or not a pilot can be reprimanded by TC? As long as the total weight, as per standard male/female weights is less than gross of the airplane, can a pilot be fined if the passengers actual weights bring the plane over it's gross?

Thanks

[Donald]

First off, using common sense, what do you think the answer is?

Secondly, straight from the TC AIM, after a 2 second search:

3.5 Weight and Balance Form
The CARs require that aircraft be operated within the weight and balance limitations specified by the manufacturer. Actual passenger weights should be used, but where these are not available, the following average passenger weights, which include clothing and carry-on baggage, may be used.

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 (12 yrs up) 206 lbs or 93.4 kg
165 lbs or 74.8 kg FEMALES (12 yrs up) 171 lbs or 77.5 kg
75 lbs or 34 kg CHILDREN (2-11 yrs) 75 lbs or 34kg
30 lbs or 13.6 kg *INFANTS (0 to less than 2 yrs) 30 lbs or 13.6 kg

* Add where infants exceed 10% of Adults

NOTES


1: 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 average weights published in the AIP, the actual weight of such passengers are to be used. The actual weights are to be obtained as described in 3.5.1.

[Laxputs]

Just trying to cover my ass. The company says to use a male weight of 189 lbs and I am not allowed to change that weight even if the passenger is 250 lbs. Not sure where that 189 came from so wanted to see what showed up on the forums.

And that statement doesnt make a lot of sense. It says, "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 average weights published in the AIP, the actual weight of such passengers are to be used" But you won't know if the actual passenger weights wil exceed the AIP weights/approved standard weights, unless you weigh the people in the first place!

[CD]

Some additional info here:

Advisory Circular 0235R - Air Operator Weight and Balance Control Procedures Subparts 703/704/705 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations

[flying4dollars]

Just trying to cover my ass. The company says to use a male weight of 189 lbs and I am not allowed to change that weight even if the passenger is 250 lbs. Not sure where that 189 came from so wanted to see what showed up on the forums.

And that statement doesnt make a lot of sense. It says, "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 average weights published in the AIP, the actual weight of such passengers are to be used" But you won't know if the actual passenger weights wil exceed the AIP weights/approved standard weights, unless you weigh the people in the first place!

It does make sense. It says if you can honestly say that using standard weights won't be close to accurate because said pax are visibly over these weights, then use the passengers actual weights to determine your ACTUAL payload. Yes, this means you'll have to weigh them.

For example, if you have a number of obese passengers boarding your King Air, you damn well know they are heavier than standard weights. Therefore, you must weigh them individually to ensure you're within your operating weight and balance envelope.

[Widow]

The company says to use a male weight of 189 lbs and I am not allowed to change that weight even if the passenger is 250 lbs.

Has your company got an SMS in place yet?

[North Shore]

Another note:

200 lbs or 90.7 kg MALES (12 yrs up) 206 lbs or 93.4 kg

that 'average' includes a bunch of 12-18 year olds - not many of whom are above 200. If there was a real average made - of adult males age 18 and up, I'd be willing to bet that the weight would be more like 210 or 220...

[Investigator]

.

[The Mole]

If the Max gross take-off weight of your airplane is in limitation section of flight manual. Then it Trumps anything in your ops manual or coming from your employers mouth.

[The Old Fogducker]

Laxputs and Others:

Oh, and nobody has said it yet, but if you attempt to operate legally, your boss will most likely fire you after ... or during ... a temper tantrum that would be worthy of a display of an escapee from a mental institution and is without psychoactive medication, ......or a spoiled four year old child that fails to get his way when he wants an ice cream cone.

If he doesn't fire you then and there, you'll just be left on the ground to starve for a few weeks between trips "to teach you a lesson," and then only be assigned the flights that go into crappy places in lousy weather to runways that are better suited to hosting mud wrestling events. Most likely you'll be in the most flogged out airplane in the fleet with another overload "to see if you've learned anything yet."

You will be certain the dispatcher is trying to kill you.

When you finally move on to another employer, your current boss will bad-mouth you far and wide as ..... "having a bad attitude" or a subtle variation on theme would be .... "he just didn't have what it takes to make it in commercial aviation."

Should you ever decide to take a job with Transport to attempt to protect pilots and the travelling public from undue managerial pressure, you will be labelled as "somebody who couldn't make it in the real world."

Lord help you if you should have an accident and someone is hurt ... because that's when the previous statements of "don't worry kid, we'll stand with you. You're in good hands" will evaporate .... your employer will drop you so quickly, you'll think they'd picked up the red-hot end of a fireplace poker ........ saying something along the line of "we have a Transport Canada Approved Operations Manual and a guy like this comes along, and once he goes over the horizon, there's no telling what the little weasel will do despite our finest efforts."

You'll be sold down the road so fast your head will be spinning.

The newspaper and TV news shows really like those type of stories as lead items ... after all, it may mean the reporter gets a byline ... which is the creme de la creme of a reporter's day, especially if it makes it onto the Canada Press distribution system to appear nationally.

The Old Fogducker

[SeptRepair]

Very well said.

[Flybaby]

An American -8 company I worked the ground for got audited to see if there standard Pax and Carry-on was accurate. It ended up that most of their flights were going out 2000lbs over weight because of standard weights.

[SuperchargedRS]

REALLY!!!

For god sake man, who cares about the rules and covering your ass, USE SOME D@MN COMMON SENSE!

[canpilot]

Old fogducker,

DAMN STRAIGHT! You hit the nail on the head!

I used transport canada weights/ actual weights. If I saw a group of rather large people with camera gear, fishing gear that could eat me whole I knew damn well we'd be over and adjust accordingly. This being said, if you have a group of small female pax with fishing gear I knew I could take more cargo etc.

[Louis]

Fogducker, I couldn't agree more about this, nothing new under the sun. And it's a shame.

Laxputs, those "standard weights" are there to allow operators and pilots to have some numbers to start with when they otherwise wouldn't have any. They're usually "close enough" that your airplane should remain within its weight and CG envelope. (Or little over enough that it won't really show performance wise.) The more passengers, the better this works out, being that it is an average. (Read between the lines: an average over four people might not work very well.)

For those times when you tell yourself "Holy **** there's no way these two add up to 400 pounds" then its probably better to get the actual weights, or at least something closer to actual than "standard". Tactfully and discreetly asking is one option, developing a sense of how much people weigh over time by comparison is another.

Now, while it is probably time to consider refreshing that résumé, you're learning those "times to say no" Cat Driver talks about in his signature. Your decision-making priorities are: life, licence, job.

[The Old Fogducker]

Laxputs:


They are likely subtracting 13 lbs for carry-on baggage from the summer standard weight of 200 lbs. That would give you a 187 figure for computation purposes.

This is permitted if carry-on is controlled.

All of the comments about obvious larger/smaller lighter/heavier still applies.

Regards from,
I feel like ducking the fog.....
(the pilot formerly known as The Old Fogducker)

[PanEuropean]

...that statement doesn't make a lot of sense. It says, "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 average weights published in the AIP, the actual weight of such passengers are to be used" But you won't know if the actual passenger weights wil exceed the AIP weights/approved standard weights, unless you weigh the people in the first place!

I'm going to stick my neck out here (Canadian Air Regulations are not my strong point) and take a guess here that the rationale behind that statement is as follows:

If you have reason to believe from looking at the flight paperwork, etc. (not the actual passengers) that your passengers are going to be heavier than average, then you should set aside the standard weight practice and use actual passenger weights. In other words, if the manifest or charter document or group booking says "Lower Alabama Sumo Wrestling Club" or "East Rabbithash Football Team", then you have a common-sense obligation to use actual weights. I am sure that the same concept works in reverse - if you are taking a group of people to an anorexia convention, you could pass them over the scale (assuming you could convince them to stand on one) and use their actual weights as well, thus allowing you to load more cargo or fuel than normal.

My experience working for European operators has always been that if there is any doubt, you either weigh them and use actual weights, or use declared (verbally given) passenger weights and add 5% for clothing. I have never heard of an employer objecting to this practice. If they are heavier than normal, you just bump cargo, or in a worst-case situation, stop for fuel along the way.

Michael

[Sidebar]

Assuming this relates to an air taxi operation, here's what the CARs say on the subject.

Weight and Balance Control

703.37 (1) No person shall operate an aircraft unless, during every phase of the flight, the load restrictions, weight and centre of gravity of the aircraft conform to the limitations specified in the aircraft flight manual.

(2) An air operator shall have a weight and balance system that meets the Commercial Air Service Standards.

(3) An air operator shall specify in its company operations manual its weight and balance system and instructions to employees regarding the preparation and accuracy of weight and balance forms.

A company ops manual is something typically designed to cover the ass of TC and the company, and when something goes wrong, both of them will point to the manual and say "this pilot did not comply with the manual." The fact that company management condoned or encouraged non-compliance is unlikely to be uncovered by TC and its ineffective (read non-existent) oversight methods. Any problems will be blamed on a pilot who may not be around to defend themself, and company management will go on about their business with little change.

My advice? If your employer encourages and condones non-compliance, look for another job at a better company.

[sarg]

The company says to use a male weight of 189 lbs and I am not allowed to change that weight even if the passenger is 250 lbs. Not sure where that 189 came from so wanted to see what showed up on the forums.

A commercial operator's operations manual is required to have w&b info in it. CARs require compliance with the ops manual. Show your boss what he wrote in the ops manual next time he says to use 189 lbs.

Maybe its time to look for a different employer?

Laxputs:


They are likely subtracting 13 lbs for carry-on baggage from the summer standard weight of 200 lbs. That would give you a 187 figure for computation purposes.

This is permitted if carry-on is controlled.

All of the comments about obvious larger/smaller lighter/heavier still applies.

Regards from,
I feel like ducking the fog.....
(the pilot formerly known as The Old Fogducker)

I'm pretty sure the old number for carry-on was 11lbs, so guessing that the boss is using the new weight and reducing the by the "old" carry-on to get 189lbs. From your other post you're flying a 206 which is not approved for carry-on luggage, no place to store it, so the reduction in the pax standard weight is okay. Still the requirement to adjust for extra heavy pax.

[Meatservo]

Just trying to cover my ass. The company says to use a male weight of 189 lbs and I am not allowed to change that weight even if the passenger is 250 lbs. Not sure where that 189 came from so wanted to see what showed up on the forums.

Hey, can I guess? You're working for a highly respected seaplane airline based in Coal Harbour?

Old Fogducker, I couldn't have ranted better myself. The other option of course would be to spinelessly acquiesce to all the boss's unreasonable demands and spend the rest of your life with diminishing self respect. It's even better now because instead of being bullied by a crusty old pilot, we can look forward to receiving the same treatment from some homo from a business school who is ten years younger than you and camouflaged behind several layers of paperwork demonstrating "compliance" and "accountability", of which the terrific "SMS" is an integral part.

SMS seems to me to be founded on the principle that it was always the pilots who were breaking the rules and fucking up, and the poor ol' managers were always doing their best to make those asshole pilots toe the line and follow the air regs, and thank god, now we have SMS to protect the management from our iniquities.

Here's what you do. You load your plane per the flight manual, put a little extra gas in there to make your mom happy, and then go and boast about how overloaded you are within your boss's earshot, so that he will be happy, and then everybody wins.

[Investigator]

The TSB made a finding on this issue:

The use of standard passenger weights presents greater risks for aircraft under 12 500 pounds than for larger aircraft due to the smaller sample size (nine passengers or less) and the greater percentage of overall aircraft weight represented by the passengers. The use of standard passenger weights could result in an overweight condition that adversely affects the safety of flight.

TSB report on the Georgian Express accident at Pelee Island: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 4h0001.pdf

Recommendation made by the TSB:

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 or fewer passengers.

TC's response to the recommendation: http://www.tc.gc.ca/tcss/TSB-SS/Air/200 ... nopsis.htm

This issue has not been fully resolved. TSB's assessment of TC's response: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/recommandation ... _a0401.asp

[North Shore]

Here's what you do. You load your plane per the flight manual, put a little extra gas in there to make your mom happy, and then go and boast about how overloaded you are within your boss's earshot, so that he will be happy, and then everybody wins.

Ha Ha Ha The Servo strikes again with more words of cynical wisdom!

[The Old Fogducker]

A company ops manual is something typically designed to cover the ass of TC and the company, and when something goes wrong, both of them will point to the manual and say "this pilot did not comply with the manual." The fact that company management condoned or encouraged non-compliance is unlikely to be uncovered by TC and its ineffective (read non-existent) oversight methods. Any problems will be blamed on a pilot who may not be around to defend themself, and company management will go on about their business with little change.

My advice? If your employer encourages and condones non-compliance, look for another job at a better company.

Sidebar:

A very small correction to your post and a continuation of my own info ... the Company Ops Manual (COM) is there to provide direction to employees and management on how the day to day operations of the company are to be conducted. There is supposed to be enough guidance included between the covers to be a stand-alone book on how to comply.

Lets go back to the good old days of Canadian aviation before it was "dumbed down" and settle in to watch The Rokie and Bullwinkle Show. Lets fast forward to the part where we have Peabody and Sherman set the wayback machine for roughly 30 years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YunO4Wc8E28&feature=fvsr

Around that time, The Dubin Safety Inquiry found that Tomahawk Airways of Red Lake and Athabaska Airways of Prince Albert were having many, many regulatory shortcomings and accidents. Of those, there were fatal crashes .... seemingly without ramification from Transport. Each accident where "only" 3 or 4 people were killed was treated in isolation and not symptomatic of a larger problem with company culture.

It was all too common to watch the owners or managers blame the crashes and deaths on the pilot not having complied with the COM. Most of the staff never knew there was such a thing as an Ops Manual, let alone comply with it. You did what you were told and if you "got uppity" and wanted to introduce the concept of legality to your flying, you could expect big trouble to come your way in a real hurry. That would include threats & coercion, firing, cutting already pitiful wages, social ostrasization, and of course your reputation was shot as far as a good reference to another company.

Today's Transport Canada has a different way of doing business compared to the old days. Lets hope the new system works out for the protection of the public.

After almost 40 years in the business, I'm somewhat jaded however. Its my belief that most 703 and some 704 operations are not ready for the additional layer of protection of the oft times called "self regulation" under SMS to be effective because as companies, they are operating with exceptionally low profit margins and lack the corporate maturity to be counted on "to do things the right way."

TC senior management made a serious error in introducing SMS without continuing to perform regulatory compliance oversight to ensure that SMS would be effective in reducing safety related errors or modification of CAR 703 company cultures which are very similar to RAF Bomber Command calling for an "all-out maximum effort, thousand plane raid on Berlin."

For some of the owners of 703 and 704 AOCs, I'll bet they wish it was still WW2, so "cowardly pilots" could be court marshalled for "Lack of Moral Fibre" and shot in front of the staff an example to others in the "squadron" for turning down trips for frivolous reasons like thunderstorms, fog, closed runways, muddy runways, overweight, beyond inspections, broken missing or non-existent equipment, duty day violations, seat belts, life vests, low oil pressure, low tire pressure, no runway lights, or any one of a million other reasons which arise in the course of a few weeks flight operations.

The Old Fogducker

[just curious]

Yep, it's been a long time, but I can still picture Tomahawks dead 402 in Deer Lake. SMS reports there would have been submitted via the company shredder for sure.

[Richiedabull]

Hello there....

I would first like to say that you should always your common sense. Also, if you are not comfortable with something don't do it. Remember its your responsible for you and those passengers wellbeing. The most important thing is everyone's saftey , not the company's bottom line.

That being said awhile back while flying a Kingair 100 I had a similar concern. My company also used standard weights. The Company is in northern Ontario and it seemed to me that the passengers were much heavier then the standards. I did what seemed like 1000s of flights but on 8 occasions, chaters not sked flights, I was able to weighed the passengers. To my surprise the actual passenger weights were within 100 lbs of the standard weights everytime, aND 5 of the 8 times the Actual weight was lower.

I know this was only 8 occasions and it really isn't enough to make a certain conclusion. But for me this was enough to put my mind at ease. I hope this helps you and maybe you can try the same thing and tell your.results.