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.

Comments

Just starting now?

[MagickalMyst]

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.

Re:Just starting now?

[irussel]

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.

Re:Just starting now?

[jfrorie]

Worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Just starting now?

[holmstar]

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.

Re:Just starting now?

[FatdogHaiku]

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.

Re:Just starting now?

[wired_parrot]

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

Re:Just starting now?

[debrain]

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

Re:Just starting now?

[bobbied]

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.

Re:Just starting now?

[pjt33]

And for what it's worth, underestimating weight can also be hazardous.

Re: Just starting now?

[mbeckman]

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.

Why is safety in scare quotes?

[nedlohs]

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?

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[Joce640k]

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.

Re:Why is safety in scare quotes?

[Idarubicin]

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.

Re:Anonymity

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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!"

Passenger Weight Limits

[dmatos]

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.

Why not start now..and take if further?

[cayenne8]

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.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[alvinrod]

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.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[cayenne8]

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.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[ultranova]

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?

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Why not start now..and take if further?

[Dunbal]

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.

It *is* a safety issue.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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.

Re:Why not set a limit to total weight?

[Kjella]

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.