Slashdot Mirror


Airline Begins Weighing Passengers For 'Safety'

New submitter Lopsemily writes to note that passengers on Uzbekistan Airways may face a new pre-flight check: In a recent statement, the country's flag carrier announced it will weigh passengers and their carry-on luggage prior to flights to determine how much weight they'll be adding to the plane. 'According to the rules of International Air Transport Association, airlines are obliged to carry out the regular procedures of preflight control passengers weighing with hand baggage to observe requirements for ensuring flight safety,' says the airline's statement.

35 of 373 comments (clear)

  1. Just starting now? by MagickalMyst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, has this ever been a problem?

    When was the last time that a plane had to make an emergency landing or a flight delayed because the plane simply weighed too much due to obese travelers?

    This looks more like a precursor for charging extra fees for tickets based on a person's weight... kind of like charging extra for bandwidth usage or bottled air.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    1. Re:Just starting now? by irussel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Part of the problem is that airlines are cramming more seats into each plane. However the real limiting capacity for carrying people/cargo is not # of seats, its weight. Too heavy, then the plane needs extra runway to reach a higher speed just to get off the ground. Even if it does get off the ground, it may not stay that way for long if weight limits are exceeded.

      Then there's the fact that we have more obese travelers. So yeah, not surprised its becoming more of a problem. And technically, weight and balance calculations are required before each flight.

    2. Re:Just starting now? by jfrorie · · Score: 5, Informative
    3. Re:Just starting now? by holmstar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And technically, weight and balance calculations are required before each flight.

      Absolutely. Aircraft weight and balance is very important. These calculations also determine how much fuel to carry. Sometimes while in flight pilots will report unexpected fuel burn, difficulty climbing, that the plane is nose or tail heavy, and request an audit of what was loaded onto the plane (baggage/cargo). Also, if you've ever been on a plane that's relatively empty, you may notice flight attendants spreading out the passengers so that they all aren't in the front, or wherever.

    4. Re:Just starting now? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can't you get all the info you need by building sensors into the landing gear, if they're not there already. Weight change at each wheel set should give overall balance and total live load... they already know what the static load is so it's people, luggage, and fuel that vary.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    5. Re:Just starting now? by KeithJM · · Score: 2

      It's pretty common in smaller flights (think turbo prop planes) that are only partially sold to have to shift passengers around for weight balance. It's not so much the total weight, but the location of weight in the cabin can definitely affect flight characteristics of the plane.

    6. Re:Just starting now? by wired_parrot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, obese passengers have caused air crashes before. The most infamous one I can think of was a Cessna Caravan 208 that crashed in Pelee, Ontario. The findings of the report showed that the average passenger weight was 240lbs in that flight, whereas the airline was using an average weight for men of 188lbs at the time, which contributed to the aircraft being over 500lbs than estimated. This is a bigger issue with small aircraft, where your weight margin is much tighter.

      Also note that passenger weight doesn't only include his body weight - it also includes all his carry-on belongings and clothings. Which is another reason a party of hunters with heavy winter clothing and hunting gear can weigh significantly above average as in the above crash

    7. Re:Just starting now? by debrain · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seriously, has this ever been a problem?

      There have been a half-a-dozen incidents of planes overrunning runways on takeoff or otherwise crashing because of the difference between the expected average weight of passengers and their actual (obese) weight, most notably Obese passengers could have caused plane crash, May 2003, aka Air Midwest 5481.

      Further reading: The true costs of heavier passengers: Part one

    8. Re:Just starting now? by bobbied · · Score: 5, Informative

      Seriously, has this ever been a problem?

      YES!

      This is a common issue in commercial AND private aviation. Weight and balance is *critical* to flying safely and as load factors increase and aircraft sizes decrease it becomes very necessary to be more and more accurate. Let me explain why this is.

      First is total weight. Aircraft are designed to handle a maximum takeoff and landing weight safely. The calculated performance numbers for the aircraft are based on it's weight. Now for a 777 another 100 lbs might be unnoticeable, but for a C150 I can assure you it is. Being over weight affects take off performance, necessary runway lengths, maximum rate of climb, and stopping distances on aborted takeoffs. It affects landing configurations, cross wind tolerances, and breaking distances. If you are in a position where you are depending on the performance of the aircraft, safety demands that you not be overweight.

      Balance is next. Balance has to do with where the center of gravity is on the aircraft. The CG must fall within a very narrow range for both efficiency and safety's sake. If the CG is to far forward, it makes the nose heavier and you must apply downward force on the tail using the elevators to keep the nose up. This extra force creates drag and adds to the amount of lift the wings must create to stay in the air. All this creates drag and lowers efficiency. The problem though is you cannot just move the CG way to the aft or you make the aircraft unstable. If the CG is too far aft and you stall the aircraft cannot be brought out of the stall and will crash so for safety, you need the CG forward. The area between these two points is usually pretty small compared to the length of the aircraft and actually gets smaller as you approach the maximum operating weight.

      So why does how much people weigh matter? Quite simply because you cannot exceed the maximum weight of the aircraft, and with today's tendency for people to be a bit porky makes it very easy to get overloaded. Plus, if you have an uneven distribution of porky people between front to back. Moving 100lbs of weight forward might be the difference between living or dying in a stall.

      So yes, passenger weight matters, especially at high load factors where we are operating at or near the maximum ratings of the aircraft. And, now that people are weighing more and more, it matters more and more.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:Just starting now? by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Informative
    10. Re:Just starting now? by jfrorie · · Score: 2
      Read further...

      "It was determined that neither problem alone would have caused the loss of control, which explains why it departed Huntington, West Virginia safely."

      Further down....

      As a result of the weight issues discovered, the FAA planned to investigate and potentially revise estimated weight values, something that had not been done since 1936. Air Midwest used an average weight of 200 pounds (90.7 kg) per passenger after the accident, but the NTSB suggests that airlines use actual weights instead of average. 70% of small air carriers still use average.

      Weight issues affect control surface authority. In this case, it was a contributing factor and relevant enough for the FAA to change it's guidance.

      FYI, Private Pilot, ASEL. And in the aircraft I am certificated for, weight is quite relevant. Ditto for the small carriers.

    11. Re: Just starting now? by mbeckman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Many large transport airplanes have an on board aircraft weighing system (OBAWS) that, when the aircraft is on the ground, gives the flightcrew a continuous indication of the aircraft total weight and the location of the CG.

      The system consists of strain-sensing transducers in each main wheel and nose wheel axle, a weight and balance computer, and indicators that show the gross weight, the CG location in percent of MAC, and an indicator of the ground attitude of the aircraft.

      The strain sensors measure the amount each axle deflects and sends this data into the computer, where signals from all of the transducers and the ground attitude sensor are integrated. The results are displayed on the indicators for the flight crew as a "weight on wheels" value.

  2. Shite by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    I hope this isn't going the way of overweight baggage fees.

    Honey! We'll be driving to Disneyworld this year.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  3. Detail? by Alioth · · Score: 2

    There's no detail in the article - they may be doing this only for very small aircraft (the cited Samoan airline for example, is flying small 4 seat single engine aircraft where weight and balance is absolutely critical, and an unexpected fat passenger will mean necessarily having to leave someone or luggage or fuel behind).

    For larger aircraft, standard passenger weights are used. However this can sometimes be wrong. A friend is a senior FO flying the MD-11, and his airline takes military contracts from time to time. One time leaving Hawaii they discovered they were carrying a full plane load of Marines armed to the teeth, although they didn't know that until they started coming through the door. He said the aircraft didn't climb as well as usual, and when he estimated their true takeoff weight, he reckoned they took off some 12,000 lbs overweight.

  4. Why is safety in scare quotes? by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u...

    Of course the quotes are in the original article.

    Sounds good to me, why should people who don't have as much weight in their luggage or their stomachs have to subsidize those that do?

    1. Re:Why is safety in scare quotes? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If airlines charge $50 extra because your suitcase is 100 grams too heavy then they should weigh the passengers as well.

      One or the other.... you can't have both.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Why is safety in scare quotes? by Idarubicin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why should people that don't drive as much subsidize those that do through road taxes?

      They don't. This is what taxes on gasoline are for.

      Actually, in the United States the largest share - roughly half - of the cost of roads comes from general revenues, not from user-specific taxes and fees. For example, in 2010, state and local governments spent $153 billion on roads. They collected $41 billion in fuel taxes and $13 billion in tolls and other transportation-related non-fuel taxes and charges related to usage. Another $23 billion was paid in vehicle licensing charges (your flat "access" fee). The remaining $76 billion comes from general revenues. (And then there's an infrastructure deficit - deferred maintenance, repair, and replacements - that isn't being paid for right now but is accumulating nevertheless. Right now we're something like $300 billion in the hole just for bridges which need to be replaced.)

      So yeah, non-drivers are very much subsidizing the driving population. One can certainly make an argument that the overall economic benefit of having a functional road system is good for society as a whole, but don't for one minute try to suggest that drivers are actually paying their own way.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  5. Why not set a limit to total weight? by WoLpH · · Score: 2

    I've never really understood the stupid luggage limits, I'm a fairly light guy so why do I have to pay more for a few kilos of extra luggage while the person next to me weighs 30 kilos more? It's never really been about the weight but just about adding costs... and this should have happened a long time ago ;)

    1. Re:Why not set a limit to total weight? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If men actually weigh more, and it costs more fuel to move heavier objects by airplane, then men should pay more. That's not sexism, it's logic.

      The line between bigotry and applied statistics is thin and very blurry. For example here in Norway I've heard a lot of broad generalizations of why there's so many Swedes in the restaurant/bar/nightclub business and why there's so many Poles in the construction industry, claiming they have higher work morale, less sick leave and whatnot. But if you say anything remotely like that about why you wouldn't hire immigrants from certain countries, you'll have demonstrations and boycotts and be reported to the police for racial discrimination.

      We're all individuals but we're all through statistics part of various groups with positive and negative connotations. For example, by being male I'm more likely than the average person to be a rapist, simply because there's so few females. Not that they don't exist, but statistics. So all other things being equal, would you like me or a woman to drive your wasted daughter home? It doesn't matter what I would do, it's what the "statistical male that you don't know" would do. It's hardly fair to me as I know myself but anyone else would have to go with the superficial.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  6. Re:Anonymity by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hope data is accumulated and presented summarised to the crew. Otherwise, some people may find it a privacy violation.

    "Hello, this is your Captain speaking from the cockpit! As soon as we reach cruising altitude, we'll be serving drinks and dinner. Except for the passengers in rows 7, 16 and 25. You guys are a bunch of fat fucks, and will just get water!"

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  7. Passenger Weight Limits by dmatos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've read through the early comments here, and I see a lot of vitriol for "obese" people, and statements that people should only be allowed a weight limit of 100kg, or worse, 200lb, beyond which there should be extra charges.

    Go to hell, each and every one of you that supports that idea. I'm 6'3", and my body fat percentage hovers around 15%. I _sink_ in fresh water. And I weigh 240lbs, before any luggage is included. I am healthy and fit. I already suffer with airline seats that are far too small for my frame, with my knees in the back of the seat in front of me, and the headrest sitting firmly between my shoulder blades. And now you have the temerity to think that I should pay _more_ for the privilege of flying, because you think people that weigh more than 140 pounds are fat and unhealthy, and it's their own fault?

    Get real.

    --

    It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
    --Scott Adams
  8. Why not start now..and take if further? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Actually....why NOT start basis fares on weight? It would maybe encourage people TO actually try to live and eat healthier. A heavier person does require more fuel, etc....so, it isn't a discriminating factor based on a person's looks, but upon a cold hard cash factor in that it is more $$ to fly that person than someone that weighs less. I know the money is a drop in the bucket on one flight, but it adds up significantly over the airlines' fleets.

    I'd be all for that.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Why not start now..and take if further? by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The hormonal issues are often overstated. For instances hyperthyroidism (PDF warning) typically doesn't amount to enough weight to be solely responsible for obesity:

      Since much of the weight gain in hypothyroidism is accumulation in salt and water, when the hypothyroidism is treated one can expect a small (usually less than 10% of body weight) weight loss

      There are also medical treatments available for most of these issues, which a person should seek as carrying around excessive amounts of weight it hard on the body and is strongly correlated with diabetes and other medical conditions. Eventually those problems will result in a far more expensive medical bill that could be reduced or prevented by treating the initial issues.

      People who have no hormonal or glandular problems will still insist that they do, because it obviously can't be them, it must be something else's fault. Just weigh everyone and charge based on total weight of person traveling and their luggage. It's far more simple that way and even if someone does have a legitimate medical condition or has been taking medication that is responsible for their extra weight, it still doesn't change the laws of physics or the need for additional fuel.

    2. Re:Why not start now..and take if further? by TrentTheThief · · Score: 2

      Fine reasoning, if it held exactly true. but humans being what they are, it does not. Many people do eat too much and they are fat. period. I''m not judging, just pointing out that being all touchy-feely and caring counts for nothing is the plane pitches over crashes.

      This isn't fat shaming. "Norms" in your use relate to human structure and don't mean mean diddly in an engineering problem. There is no norm human, but there is room for X seats. That's what they want to fill. Flight is cut and dried engineering. If the plane is overweight or hard to trim, it doesn't fly real well and burns too much fuel. So if an airline essentially loses one entire fare due to an individual passenger's weight, who should make up that lost income and operating expense?

      Who pays? The airline and the shareholders? The skinny passengers?

      It's already too expensive and I don't want to subsidize someone else's fare.

      If you're entrepreneurial as well as politically correct, here is your opportunity to run with a startup airline that doesn't use the new smaller seats and isn't concerned with weight because it always flies using only 60% of the available space for seating.

    3. Re:Why not start now..and take if further? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Although most instances of obesity is inability to control one's shoveling food into one's mouth (like my fatty of an ex) there are instances where obesity is caused by hormonal or glandular (thyroid, pituitary, adrenal) problems, so that isn't fair. What IS fair is charging someone for two seats if they're oozing into the next seat.

      I believe it is STILL FAIR to those with glandular conditions (I have to think this category is by far a small one and an exception to the rule)...in that this is based solely on how much it costs the airline in fuel, etc to carry that person. We're talking weight here, nothing else. For whatever reason the weight disparity...a smaller, lightweight person is cheaper to carry than a heavy one, just like a box of Kleenex is cheaper to transport than a gun safe.

      Pure economics.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Why not start now..and take if further? by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually....why NOT start basis fares on weight? It would maybe encourage people TO actually try to live and eat healthier. A heavier person does require more fuel, etc....so, it isn't a discriminating factor based on a person's looks, but upon a cold hard cash factor in that it is more $$ to fly that person than someone that weighs less. I know the money is a drop in the bucket on one flight, but it adds up significantly over the airlines' fleets.

      Have you ever noticed that when people propose something purely to make someone else's life worse, they then immediately start to make excuses ("so, it isn't discriminating" = "I'm not a racist, but") thus indicating they're fully aware of the malicious bullshit nature of their own message, and knew it would be obvious to everyone else too, but chose to post it anyway?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:Why not start now..and take if further? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would be an administrative/legal nightmare.

      For example, do you include clothing weight? If so, expect passengers to start stripping when they are on the borderline of a cheaper weight bracket. Like boxers do.

      What about disabled passengers? Most countries require airlines to carry their equipment, like wheelchairs and crutches, for free. Some people are overweight due to health problems which can be classed as disabilities in a legal sense. You can bet a lot of them will argue that angle, genuinely or otherwise.

      How would you take payment? The passenger buys a ticket online, but isn't weighed until they arrive at the airport. You could ask for an estimate online, but would still need to check when they arrive and start demanding hefty chunks of cash if they are over the limit. Estimates will never be very good because even if people don't lie domestic scales are often not very accurate.

      Even charging for two seats for people who won't fit into a single one can fall foul of these issues. It's less contentious than weight but not by much.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Why not start now..and take if further? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a doctor I can say that the "glandular" excuse for being overweight is pure BS. You treat hypothyroid patients with levothyroxine, and they maintain normal weight if they adhere to treatment. Excess weight is 100% due to overeating, eating poor quality food and/or sedentarism.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Why not start now..and take if further? by gdavidp · · Score: 2

      Actually....why NOT start basis fares on weight? It would maybe encourage people TO actually try to live and eat healthier. A heavier person does require more fuel, etc....so, it isn't a discriminating factor based on a person's looks, but upon a cold hard cash factor in that it is more $$ to fly that person than someone that weighs less. I know the money is a drop in the bucket on one flight, but it adds up significantly over the airlines' fleets.

      I'd be all for that.

      Sure. Sounds great. Now, why don't we just take it a little bit further. Males statistically weigh more than females. Taller, stronger, more muscle build by nature. Why don't we charge males more than females to fly?

  9. Uzbekistan? by gurps_npc · · Score: 2
    This looks more like a comment (or worse, a joke) about Uzbekistan than a comment about airlines.

    The Nepal Airlines once sacrificed a goat to appease a Hindu God. But like this story, it says more about Nepal than it does about Airlines.

    Other airlines will no doubt ignore Uzbekistan, just as we ignore Nepal Airlines.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  10. Mostly fuel costs but there are other factors by sjbe · · Score: 2

    I bet this is all about fuel costs and nothing to do with safety.

    It's mostly about fuel costs though there is a safety component to it. You have to know the weight of the plane with reasonable accuracy to put in the right amount of fuel. There also are issues on smaller planes regarding proper distribution of weight. If you've flown in puddle jumpers you very likely have been asked to move seats to even out the weight distribution. I've had to do it a number of times and it is entirely about safety.

    If they can more accurately weigh the plane, they can put just enough fuel in to reach the destination, and save millions in jet fuel over the course of a year.

    Quite true but there is also the issue that travelers currently aren't charged accurately for the weight they bring on the plane. They sort of do it by guessing the average weight of a passenger and then charging extra fees for luggage. But it would be much more sensible to actually charge each customer a fuel surcharge based on weight (themselves + their luggage). Bring more on and you pay a bit more. Travel light and you save a bit. Since weight is the biggest variable in fuel use it makes perfect sense to charge customers based on weight. Plus it would create an incentive to pack light AND it would reduce the number of people trying to cram an elephant in their carry-on to avoid baggage fees.

  11. its more of an issue than you think. by nimbius · · Score: 2

    working for an airline that rhymes with town crest, passenger and luggage weight is an issue thats usually handled automagically by a combination of pilots and flight crew. you'll rarely see it, but very large passengers will generally not get on a flight until they buy the adjacent seats for their row. Its a call made by the captain and crew to ensure drinks service and emergency procedures work. you might be refused a wing seat in an exit row, you might not get to sit in front. we try to avoid it because fat passengers are typically angry passengers.

    passengers generally have been getting larger. the obesity epidemic makes flights heavier, fuel costlier, and boarding and deplaning slower. jetways have to handle more load and they see their pantographs serviced more frequently. and the bathrooms (or as we call it lav service) become a bigger issue thanks to the poor diet we're all subjected to and the confined nature of the space. its more frequent and the equipment ends up being serviced more often. passengers also pack more crap than they did 30 years ago, and in response we're trying to lighten flights by giving an economic incentive to 'pack light.' That turns out, in my opinion, not to have worked. instead more people are just forcibly insisting their checked luggage be treated as carry-on. Trust me, if its a packed flight and youre not boarding with a light backpack and a jacket, that bags getting checked no matter how quickly you try to shuffle through the line.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  12. It *is* a safety issue. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting
    For small airplanes. Not for the huge airliners.

    I remember a crash of a small twin engined turbo-prop, around 2006. The plane took off and crashed within seconds of take off, it just pitched up and up and up, stalled, rolled in and crashed into a hanger. The cause was the use of average weight for passengers to estimate the take off weight to set the elevator tabs. Compounded by unusual number of heavy bags. The plane was tail heavy, the center of gravity was beyond the allowable limits and the elevators could not generate enough aerodynamic force to pitch the plane down.

    The captain of the plane, the leader of NTSB investigation team, the air traffic controller, the emergency crew leader that went into the wreckage looking for survivors, and the baggage handler who provided the clue that cracked the case were all women.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  13. Re:Anonymity by cplusplus · · Score: 2

    The funniest part about your comment is believing that airlines serve any sort of food without purchase required.

    Meals and alcohol are still 'free' on most international flights... Pro-tip - Always request the Indian or Hindu meal when making your reservation (if offered). It's usually the best tasting airline food you can get, and goes well with the cheap beer/wine that's offered :)

    --
    "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
  14. Ever sat in the middle seat ? by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    I recently flew from Phoenix wedged between to women who both weighed close to 300 lbs. if they weighed a pound. I couldn't get my elbows un-wedged from my ribs for 2 days following the flight. I can see being embarrassed if you weigh that much and still can't see over the top of the seat, but why should I be forced to suffer the invasion of the seat I pay for because of someone else's' health/size issues ?

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?