[FormerlyDoS]

Papillion53

I understand your post and am not going to attack you for expressing a reasonable opinion.

Having made my point, I will now not mention it again and am ignoring the other provocative post that has been made just to wind me up.

In a way, I would be pleased if you were disappointed with VK for such an obvious trolling post and applied some thought as to the motives for it. Sorry, but his post was bound to create strong responses, as this expressed opinion has before on here and on other fora – it’s an obvious troll, not me being over sensitive.

The forum has been pleasant recently……….

Have a nice day.

[Irons80]

No post has been made to ‘wind you up’ – stop being so self-important. It’s a real shame that you can give out opinion, but seem so unable – at times – to accept the views of others whose opinion doesn’t match up to yours. And by reacting to VK’s post, you are starting a row – precisely what you claim he is doing.

[Papillion53]

FDoS
Thank you for your pleasant reply to my post. 🙂 please don’t let posts wind you up, it’s not worth it, it’s an online forum remember! 🙂 You know sometimes I shake my head at some stuff posted, and to keep on subject, with double chin wobbling (!!), but choose to ignore and not post, even though I know I just want to pitch in with my tuppence worth!

I was disappointed with VK’s remark and I did comment on it in my earlier post.

I most certainly think through all of my comments before I post as I know what a sensitive lot you all are!! 😉 🙂

Yes the forum has been great the last couple of weeks – thanks to all and I do enjoy reading everyone’s different opinions when expressed in a hearty discussion, even the stuff about technical weight distribution in another thread which goes whoosh over my head! LOL!

MarkCymru – what do you think are the guidelines for a passenger of size? For example, if you are 250lbs plus, you may have to pay a supplement for flying in a helicopter, or smaller aircraft e.g. Cessna, or a seaplane as they quite obviously have their own total weight limits. It would be embarrassing to be weighed pre flight though! I was worried sick about being weighed preflight on a Cessna flights we did recently in OZ. Not that I am 250lbs, but to be weighed in public – yikes horror of horrors! But it was a good incentive for me to lose a couple of stones pre-holiday! And then we were not weighed – I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry! 😉

[Senator]

This is a really difficult subject as obesity is not only from self-indulging, but could come from various medical or genetic issues bordering on disability. To stigmatise every obese person wholeheartedly is perhaps unfair, and even malicious without knowledge of their specific condition.

It brings me to the entire concept of weight; not only of passengers.

I am a fairly large man; I am 192cm and weigh in around 105kg. By no stretch of the imagination am I obese, but carry a few extra kilos from my love of “la dolce vita”. However, I have thought about this for a while. Let’s say I am off on a trip with my girlfriend. She weighs in south of 60kg. I have 10kg hand-luggage; she has two massive 32kg bags. Why should she pay excess fees for the bags if we have paid the same for our tickets?

[Irons80]

@ Senator – that’s a fair point, but where do you draw the line? What if you have not used your full baggage allowance, for example and she has, but not exceeded it? Then she gains extra weight that you aren’t using. Perhaps the airlines could move to an overall weight model – i.e. each passenger gets 125kg of weight allowance in their ticket, which includes both them and their bags!

[Papillion53]

Irons80 and Senator – this is just what I was asking – if it came down to a weight per pax issue, what would be the weight? And would it include bags?

Sorry Irons just re-read your post and see you suggested 125k.

[FormerlyDoS]

Papillion

I don’t know if this helps in anyway, because it is from a private flight perspective and commercial rules may be different, but with regard to small aircraft such as Cessna and Piper….

Each aircraft has an operating handbook, which is unique to it. In that handbook is a schedule of weight and balance, which includes information of what can be loaded safely and where. The exact details vary, but I will give you (from memory) the general approach for a Piper PA32, which typically is fitted with 6 seats.

The handbook has a graph that looks something like this (although I cannot confirm what aircraft this is – possible a PA28, but the graph is very similar in design)

http://www.pilotshop.com/catalog/graphics/172spNav3-WeightBalanceEnlarged.jpg#.UK9haaPleSp

The aircraft loading depends on the mission, so the ‘normal’ category is self explanatory. The ‘utility’ category covers certain uses, such as practising spinning, that are approved for the aircraft, but which require a limited range of weight and balance.

On populates the table beneath the chart with the details of the load to be carried and then calculates the weight and the moment.

Then one looks on the graph and checks if the numbers fall into the required category for the mission.

In a longer aircraft, like the PA32 (3 rows of seat), seating the heaviest people over the wing (nearer the centre of gravity) may have a significant effect and render the aircraft within limits.

At the end of the day, in a light aircraft, it is all a matter of trading off passengers, luggage and fuel, to ensure the aircraft will perform safely.

If the pilot thinks the load is very light, he may not calculate the w&b (although I always did for the longer PA32, as it gave me a clue about how the aircraft would ‘feel’ when low and slow) and in a 2 or 4 seat aircraft, there are less options for spreading the weight around.

BTW, the weight distribution laterally is not a problem, it is just the fore and aft spread, to ensure that the pilot has enough pitch control authority (especially a lower airspeeds) to control the flight safely.

[Papillion53]

FDoS – thanks for taking the time and explaining that to me – I think I’ve got it now!

So in our Cessna 208B in OZ with 12 seats – we had 4 pax and the pilot had us sit in the 2 middle rows with 2 pax in each (4 rows with single and double seat). Then in our tiny Cessna 402 TSI – 6 seats – there were just the two of us, so he had us sit in the immediate row behind him, this bird had a bird’s eye view! The larger aircraft had our luggage strapped in at the back and the tiny had the luggage stuffed in at the front and back.

We’ve booked a couple of flight seeing trips next year and they have a weight limit of 250lbs per pax, and they state quite clearly you have to pay more if you’re over that weight. Fair enough, or is it if you’re a strapping rugby player who could be 250 lbs+ easily and I for one wouldn’t call him “fat”! Mind you there would be a point where you simply wouldn’t be able to actually get into these small aircraft.

Now could you please explain CAT3 and the offside rule to me (only kidding about the offside rule!!!LOL! )

Thanks FDos! 🙂

[FormerlyDoS]

CATIII is way beyond my training level, but this website may help

http://www.navfltsm.addr.com/ils.htm

The exact info is well down, but the whole thing explains the concept of the ILS, which I’ve only ever used on a CATI approach.

[Papillion53]

FDoS – you’re probably wondering why I asked? It used to be mentioned amongst the KLM crew – especially on bad weather days (low cloud, fog, North Sea har etc) at ABZ when we would enquire whether we would see them back later that day (Housekeeping needed to know to get their rooms serviced by the time they got back!) That was when they left for the early departure to AMS or Stansted (that will tell you how long ago it was!) and return by mid-day. They would usually laugh and say its ok “We’ve got CATIII” – or something along the lines of “if we can see at 200 feet, we’ll be fine” – so I always thought the CATIII meant they could land in bad weather ie low visibility and it was “something technical” either with the aircraft or the airport that allowed that. So now I “think” I know! 😉 🙂

Thanks FDoS – but to keep on subject, would their “weight” make any difference to such a landing?

[MartynSinclair]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPQhyLdWajk

Example of a CAT IIIA landing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXJCHUmuUyw&feature=related

a B version………..

[AnthonyDunn]

@ Senator – 23/11/2012 11:12 GMT
@ Irons80 – 23/11/2012 11:15 GMT
@ papillion53 – 23/11/2012 11:17 GMT

Streuth, having just struggled to get my head around the new Easyjet seat allocation policy with its 28 separate Q&As plus dialogue boxes, then the various baggage options, this is now starting to take on potentially nightmare proportions with Q&As covering every conceivable angle and expanding (oops, pardon the pun) by the score.

I can just imagine the LCC take on “bulge” pricing, starting at a paltry 60kg for women and 80kg for men and increasing thereon upwards. Check-in will be replaced by “weigh-in” and will start to resemble jockeys picking up their saddles etc before they get on their horses…

[FormerlyDoS]

And just to complete the CAT III set, here is a C

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsiGD-e1gAM&feature=related

[MartynSinclair]

Absolutely nothing to do with obese passengers, but carrying on the CAT 3 theme, a piece of useless information – whilst an aircraft can land automatically in zero viz, an aircraft can not take off via autopilot, even in clear viz.

[Papillion53]

FDoS and MS

Thanks for the interesting links which I’ve just watched. Yikes, almost wish I hadn’t asked!!!!! We’ve have a few low level cloud descents in ABZ when you literally can’t see anything till you’re above the runway!

MS – why the difference, can land but not take off?

It must be so hard for the pilots to just sit there and have COMPLETE trust in their instruments – training I suppose pays off big time in these cases. Am I remembering correctly that this is what caused a mid-air collision some years ago with a cargo aircraft and passenger aircraft full of Russian schoolchildren when the cargo pilot didn’t believe his autopilot? Or am I talking rubbish (as usual????!!!!! ;-). )

[Author]

Posts