Ok, never had this one happen to me before, but I was on United Express flight 3636 from Denver to Nashville Sunday 5/13/12. This flight was operated by GoJets on a CRJ-700.

The flight was completely full, and the gate agents were insisting all larger carry on bags got gate checked.

As we were waiting for the doors to close and push back, I noticed a ramp agent kept walking back from front of the aircraft to an area on the tarmac, and finally came into the plane and talked with the pilots for a few minutes.

The Pilot informed us via intercom that we were overweight (for landing) because of all the checked and gate checked luggage pushed us over the limit due to all the fuel we needed for a BNA landing where the weather was stormy.

This is where it got questionable. The pilot said that if we carried on our luggage, that didn't count towards the planes overall weight, so they opened up the first 4-5 overhead bins on both sides and started removing smaller bags and had passengers stow them under the seats. They took what looked like 10-12 bags out of the gate checked lot and stuffed them in the bins until the plane then became in acceptable weight, even though nothing really changed but the location of the bags. I understand this and if it's the FAA rule, it is a bendable rule I guess.

The pilot came on the intercom again and insisted that it wasn't a take off issue but a landing issue. We pushed back toward Runway 8. I figured at this point that as I private pilot, I know that we are educated about weight and balance and total weight and a commercial pilot knows that much more, so all's good. However, that being said, as I was on the right side of the plane and turned on to the runway from taxiway M, I noticed a loan fire engine heading (with NO lights/siren) to the end of RWY 8 somewhere around taxi way's R1, R2, R3. Then I questioned the pilots call. This is nothing but speculation, but did he call the fire truck out based on the chance that the "overweight" plane was going to have to abort takeoff due to never reaching rotation speed and needed it there to cool the brakes, or was this just happenstance that it was trucking out there at the same time?

Pilot did a brake stand before rolling, and watching the rwy markers it looked like we took off with about 4,000 ft left, or using 8,000 to lift off.. Pretty long in a CRJ-7 if you ask me....

Anyway, after that flight was pretty uneventful, except for the fact that I think half of the plane used the loan restroom next to me on a 2 hour flight!!!

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...6/history/20120513/1636Z/KDEN/KBNA

Quoting GuitrThree (Thread starter): if it's the FAA rule, it is a bendable rule I guess.

It's not bending it - it's complying precisely with the approved program that the airline has for baggage. Think of how much of a mess it would be if everything on the plane had to be individually weighed (passengers, checked bags, carry-on bags, catering, etc.). To make things easier, the airline is allowed to use average weights, which means that things weigh different amounts depending on where they are in the airplane. Bags in the hold are counted as more than bags in the cabin, because normally they are heavier. The programs are designed so that some stuff will weigh less than average, some will weigh more, and normally it will all balance out.

Quoting GuitrThree (Thread starter): This is nothing but speculation, but did he call the fire truck out based on the chance that the "overweight" plane was going to have to abort takeoff due to never reaching rotation speed and needed it there to cool the brakes, or was this just happenstance that it was trucking out there at the same time?

I'd say it was just a coincidence.

-Mir

Quoting GuitrThree (Thread starter): This is nothing but speculation, but did he call the fire truck out based on the chance that the "overweight" plane was going to have to abort takeoff due to never reaching rotation speed and needed it there to cool the brakes, or was this just happenstance that it was trucking out there at the same time?

I'd say no chance. There is no procedure to abort due to not reaching rotation speed. You abort for failures before V1, you keep going for everything after V1 except those failures that will prevent an airplane from flying. With both engines operating (and a legal takeoff performance calculation) you'll hit Vr so far before the end of the runway that you'll have no idea if you have to abort for speed or not before it's too late.

Tom.

Quoting GuitrThree (Thread starter): Pilot did a brake stand before rolling, and watching the rwy markers it looked like we took off with about 4,000 ft left, or using 8,000 to lift off.. Pretty long in a CRJ-7 if you ask me....

They took a hefty fuel load for that flight. 2 hours + hold + ALT1 or 2 (doesnt look like BNA had great weather) + any extra dispatch saw fit for possible deviation along the way.

Altitude, heavy departure, reduced thrust, assuming flaps 8... still a long roll but not quite inconceivable.

I've never done any research into it, but I've been told those markers actually give you an extra few hundred feet beyond what they say is remaining.

Quoting GuitrThree (Thread starter): This is where it got questionable. The pilot said that if we carried on our luggage, that didn't count towards the planes overall weight, so they opened up the first 4-5 overhead bins on both sides and started removing smaller bags and had passengers stow them under the seats. They took what looked like 10-12 bags out of the gate checked lot and stuffed them in the bins until the plane then became in acceptable weight, even though nothing really changed but the location of the bags. I understand this and if it's the FAA rule, it is a bendable rule I guess.

It's my understanding that every passengers weight is calculated assuming they have a carry on on board. If they don't it's essentially "wasted" weight, for the purpose of performance. As already stated earlier, any bag added to the bins have to be calculated as an additional checked bag.

Quoting GuitrThree (Thread starter): However, that being said, as I was on the right side of the plane and turned on to the runway from taxiway M, I noticed a loan fire engine heading (with NO lights/siren) to the end of RWY 8 somewhere around taxi way's R1, R2, R3. Then I questioned the pilots call. This is nothing but speculation, but did he call the fire truck out based on the chance that the "overweight" plane was going to have to abort takeoff due to never reaching rotation speed and needed it there to cool the brakes, or was this just happenstance that it was trucking out there at the same time?

Lol.

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 1):

Ding ding!

Quoting Mir (Reply 2): It's not bending it - it's complying precisely with the approved program that the airline has for baggage. Think of how much of a mess it would be if everything on the plane had to be individually weighed (passengers, checked bags, carry-on bags, catering, etc.). To make things easier, the airline is allowed to use average weights, which means that things weigh different amounts depending on where they are in the airplane. Bags in the hold are counted as more than bags in the cabin, because normally they are heavier. The programs are designed so that some stuff will weigh less than average, some will weigh more, and normally it will all balance out.

Right again!

I've worked a flight before where we were overweight by 18 pounds, and so one of our ramp agents opened up the cargo bin and pulled out the smallest valet bag (still technically weighs 30 pounds due to standard weight) and ripped the tag off and threw it in the FA's closet! BAM! We were underweight by 12 pounds!

Quoting Mir (Reply 2): Bags in the hold are counted as more than bags in the cabin, because normally they are heavier.

really? every single checked bag is weighed during check in / baggage drop off... why don´t they use these exact values instead of an average? wouldn´t it provide much more accurate performance / CG calculations?

Quoting horstroad (Reply 6): really? every single checked bag is weighed during check in / baggage drop off... why don´t they use these exact values instead of an average? wouldn´t it provide much more accurate performance / CG calculations?

Figure out an efficient, practical, and zero cost way to do that and get back to me. That process would be a mess.

This wasn't a Max Takeoff weight issue. It was an issue of ensuring that they would be under Max Landing weight on arrival. There's Max Gross Takeoff weight, which is the highest weight you're ever allowed to take off at, period. There's also Max Allowable Takeoff Weight for any particular flight, and it varies based on myriad factors.

As a simplified example, say your aircraft has a MGTOW of 20,000. It has a MGLW of 10,000. You are going to burn 5,000 lbs. of fuel on this flight. Therefore, your MATOW (max allowable) is 15,000 for that particular flight, in order to ensure you don't land overweight.

You likely took off thousands under max gross. Your "long" takeoff roll was likely due to derated takeoff thrust, which is perfectly safe and, to many of us, a safer option than full thrust when weight allows.

For FAA purposes, each passenger's weight includes a piece of carry-on luggage, regardless of whether or not they actually have a piece of carry on luggage.

At a place I used to work, each piece of gate checked luggage was 20 lbs, regular checked luggage was 30 lbs, and each passenger counted for 183 lbs in the summer and 187 lbs in the winter. As I said, these 183 and 187 lb numbers included carry-on luggage.

So you see, if everyone carried on the luggage instead of gate checking, the paperwork would show the plane as over 1000 lbs lighter, even though in reality the weight was the same.

With that said, I think what this pilot was doing was a tad unethical. Legal? Maybe, but it's a manipulation of the system, much like asking the flight attendant to "search for half weights" (trying to count more passengers as small children in order to decrease their recorded weight). Involving the passengers in the manner that his pilot did was a bit unprofessional. I would've drawn the line at this point and removed passengers if need be, although the situation could often be avoided with careful coordination between pilot the pilot and dispatcher when determining the fuel load (select a closer alternate, choose a different cruise altitude or route, etc). I wouldn't put my license on the line because my company probably went cheap and didn't pay for the best weight capabilities from the manufacturer, or didn't select the best airplane for the route being flown.

In regard to the fire truck on standby, no, that was, in all liklihood, just a coincidence. If I recall correctly, on the EMB-145XR I once flew, the maximum takeoff weight was 53,131 lbs while the max landing weight was 44,092 lbs. The airplane isn't supposed to land above 44,092 unless an emergency situation necessitates it, but it could takeoff up to 53,131 with no problem whatsover, assuming the runway was long enough. However, if it took off at 53,131, it would need to plan to burn off at least 9,039 lbs of fuel prior to landing in order to be legally dispatched. I know this was a different type of airplane, but it simply serves as an example.

Quoting horstroad (Reply 6): really? every single checked bag is weighed during check in / baggage drop off... why don´t they use these exact values instead of an average? wouldn´t it provide much more accurate performance / CG calculations?

Here's the thing about that: as I said, the standard weight program is designed so that some stuff will weigh more than it's listed as, some stuff will weigh less. The average makes it work out in the end. And that end includes everything - passengers, bags, etc. If you now introduce specificity into one component of the equation, it throws the total average off. That's why it all has to be average, or none of it can be average. You don't get to mix average and actual weights.

-Mir

Quoting kcrwflyer (Reply 7): Figure out an efficient, practical, and zero cost way to do that and get back to me. That process would be a mess.

1) weigh each baggage cart, and paint that amount on the cart. Have the ground equipment maintenance guys remark that weight once or twice a year, or when the equipment is serviced.
2) weigh baggage cart upon departing baggage carousel for outbound flight. You'd have to install a vehicle scale.
3) subrract weigh in step 1) from weight in step 2), (for each baggage cart going to the outbound flight), and voila!

And the technology even exists to weigh the carts in motion and do everything electronically    Just ask the trucking industry...

Quoting kcrwflyer (Reply 4): I've never done any research into it, but I've been told those markers actually give you an extra few hundred feet beyond what they say is remaining.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The FAA has specific guidelines on where the markers have to be. I don't remember what they are, but you can have a certain amount of error on each side of the 1000-foot increments.

Quoting N353SK (Reply 8): Your "long" takeoff roll was likely due to derated takeoff thrust, which is perfectly safe and, to many of us, a safer option than full thrust when weight allows.

Why is derated thrust safer? More efficient and gives longer engine life I can understand. But why safer?

Well all these answers are much appreciated, but what I'm asking I guess is simply this:

If you have 60 passengers on the flight, I assume that the airline is calculating that there will be 60 carry-on's plus 60 personal bags.

If 20 of the carry on's have to go to the holding, why, all of a sudden, do they have to be calculated? That's where I'm at a loss here. If the FAA allows the carry on bags as "free weight" why not just ignore all gate checked bags? Wouldn't that be the same thing? It's more than obvious that nothing but a switch of the location of the bags made this flight legal. This defines stupid government rules if nothing else.

Everything everyone's discussed here is in FAA advisory circular 120-27e which was revised shortly after the Charlotte crash in 2003.

Basically there are two types of weight control programs: a carry-on program which allows most operators to use 190/195lbs per passenger and a no-carry on program which allows most operators to use 184/189lbs per passenger. Failing that an operator can do a survey and establish their own average weight that the FAA will approve in lieu of the 190/195 and 184/189lb weights.

But basically it's a shell game:

Take a bag that weighs 50lbs on the scale at the ticket counter.
If you check it at the counter, it goes in the baggage hold and it weighs "30 pounds" or someone slaps a heavy sticker on it and it weighs "60 pounds"
If you decide not to pay the checked bag fee and carry it on: and gate/valet check the bag at the gate, it goes in the baggage hold and it weighs "20 pounds".
If you don't do either and carry it onto the airplane and place it into the overhead bin yourself, it weighs nothing (it's part of your 190/195lb passenger weight)


In regards to your takeoff roll in Denver, the 4000ft ground roll you said you experienced is actually kind of short. Every time I've done a derated takeoff in Denver on a CR7, I've always gotten to the "7" marker before we've reached Vr and since the runway is 12,000ft long, that makes a ground roll of 5,000ft before rotation in Denver (at least for me.)

[Edited 2012-05-15 20:11:43]

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 13): f 20 of the carry on's have to go to the holding, why, all of a sudden, do they have to be calculated?

Because that's indication that they're more substantial than the average carry-on (i.e. bags that are too big to fit in the overhead bins), and should be counted as more.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 13): This defines stupid government rules if nothing else.

They're better than the alternative.

-Mir

Quoting woodreau (Reply 14): In regards to your takeoff roll in Denver, the 4000ft ground roll you said you experienced is actually kind of short.

No, sorry if I didn't make it clear. We had 4,000 LEFT, thus an 8,000 ft roll... I clearly saw the "4" marker at lift off and the fire truck there on the side.....

Quoting Mir (Reply 15): They're better than the alternative.

Not really. They just MOVED the bags... The plane took off with the exact same weight and landed with the exact same weight as before they simply MOVED the bags. There is no alternative here.

Quoting Mir (Reply 15): Because that's indication that they're more substantial than the average carry-on (i.e. bags that are too big to fit in the overhead bins), and should be counted as more.

Oh, and besides that, in the end, they did fit in the overhead bin. Thats the point. Gate agents said they wouldn't fit, and then magically they did... Not one bag brought into the plane to be stowed had to be taken back out because they wouldn't fit. They all did.....

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 17): Quoting Mir (Reply 15): They're better than the alternative. Not really. They just MOVED the bags... The plane took off with the exact same weight and landed with the exact same weight as before they simply MOVED the bags. There is no alternative here.

He means the alternative weight/balance procedures. The procedure is part of the airline OpsSpec, which is certified and has to be complied with. Occasionally, rigid following of the procedures produces odd results as in this case...but it "works" in the sense that you get a legal, safe, compliant takeoff with everyone's bags. The alternatives are far more complex weight/balance procedures that might avoid this corner case but would result in horrendous delays and extra work on tons of other flights.

In other words, the small "cost" of this type of oddity is grossly overshadowed by the efficiency of the procedure most of the time.

Tom.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 17): There is no alternative here.

Indeed there is. The alternative is to weigh every bag and every passenger that comes onto the plane. That'll add time and complication, and I'm not sure how passengers would feel about being asked to step onto a scale before going down the jetway.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 18): Not one bag brought into the plane to be stowed had to be taken back out because they wouldn't fit. They all did.....

The program assumes that bags that can fit in the cabin tend to be light enough to be counted as part of the average passenger weight, and that bags that are gate-checked tend to be those that are too big (and thus heavy) to fit in the overhead bins but aren't as heavy as a normally checked bag would be, thus they count for less weight than checked bags but more weight than carry-on bags.

Of course there are exceptions - that's why it's an average weight program and not an exact weight program.

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): Here's the thing about that: as I said, the standard weight program is designed so that some stuff will weigh more than it's listed as, some stuff will weigh less. The average makes it work out in the end. And that end includes everything - passengers, bags, etc. If you now introduce specificity into one component of the equation, it throws the total average off.

And introducing specifics is exactly what happened here - airline increasing _actual average_ weight of cabin passenger (person+ carry-on+personal item), but pretending things did not change. As far as I understand, this is 100% legal and not bending any rules - but it definitely means taking a bite into safety margins built in by regulator and manufacturer.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 13): If you have 60 passengers on the flight, I assume that the airline is calculating that there will be 60 carry-on's plus 60 personal bags.

They do not account for the passenger bags in the cabin. The FAA mandates 190lbs per passenger during the summer including carry on luggage. By moving it from the hold to the cabin, the weight of the baggage no longer has to be added to the weight of the plane. Also, baggage in the hold is 30lbs per bag. By removing 10 bags from the hold and putting them in the cabin, the calculations allow for a decrease of 300lbs of weight depending on operator specific requirements.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 11): 1) weigh each baggage cart, and paint that amount on the cart. Have the ground equipment maintenance guys remark that weight once or twice a year, or when the equipment is serviced. 2) weigh baggage cart upon departing baggage carousel for outbound flight. You'd have to install a vehicle scale. 3) subrract weigh in step 1) from weight in step 2), (for each baggage cart going to the outbound flight), and voila! And the technology even exists to weigh the carts in motion and do everything electronically    Just ask the trucking industry...

Doesn't work very well for connecting hubs. Our airline weighs carts for cargo through the exact process you described (tare weight is spray-painted on the cart ends), but since our same-bank process for connecting bags skips a carousel entirely, you get a lot of bags going to many different flights that occupy one cart. You'd have to have ramp-side scales at every gate essentially to weigh each bag when they're dropped off by the runner.

I think a better solution would be to attach the weight of the bag to the barcode when it's checked in. We have that system in place for US Mail, the scanners will show the weight of each piece when you scan the barcode. They already have scales at the counters, all you'd need is a way to interface that with the PNR.

Quoting GuitrThree (Thread starter): They took what looked like 10-12 bags out of the gate checked lot

Quoting woodreau (Reply 14): If you check it at the counter, it goes in the baggage hold and it weighs "30 pounds" or someone slaps a heavy sticker on it and it weighs "60 pounds" If you decide not to pay the checked bag fee and carry it on: and gate/valet check the bag at the gate, it goes in the baggage hold and it weighs "20 pounds".

So, in the end, it seems like they were off some 200-300 lbs total. That's usually the taxi burn off before takeoff, right? Couldn't they have flown a slightly longer planned route to achieve this extra burn. I know, I know, a little wasteful, but since we're playing shell games here...

Woodreau,

Your absolutely correct. It is a shell game. Can't go into the details but essentially the airlines, the regulatory authorities and a number of others don't want to rock the boat and figure out what the real weight of an aircraft is. I've worked with technology that could tell you when another 12 pack of soft drinks was put on board and where it was located in under 10 seconds but the risk to the air carriers is that there "standard" weights are off and they have to throw passengers or bags off the airplane at the last minute with a true weight and balance system.

Quoting chapavaeaa (Reply 25): 've worked with technology that could tell you when another 12 pack of soft drinks was put on board and where it was located in under 10 seconds

I understand that details are probably proprietary... But at least, was it aircraft-based, or ground-based?

And for those of you questioning whether this practice is actually safe or not, when was the last time an American airliner, regional or bigger, crashed because of being overweight or having its weight & balance off? That happens in general aviation but I can't remember the last airliner in the US brought down by these rules. I'd say the practice is working just fine.

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 27): And for those of you questioning whether this practice is actually safe or not, when was the last time an American airliner, regional or bigger, crashed because of being overweight or having its weight & balance off?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Midwest_Flight_5481

Quoting NTSB: Although the pilots had totaled up the take-off weight of the aircraft before the flight and determined it to be within limits, the plane was actually overloaded and out of balance, due to the use of incorrect, but Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-approved, passenger weight estimates. When checked, the National Transportation Safety Board found that the estimates were over 20 pounds (9 kg) lighter than the actual weight of an average passenger. After checking the actual weight of baggage retrieved from the crash site, and passengers (based on information from next-of-kin and the medical examiner), it was found that the aircraft was actually 580 pounds (264 kg) above its maximum allowable take-off weight, with its center of gravity 5% to the rear of the allowable limit. It was determined that neither problem alone would have caused the loss of control, which explains why it departed Huntington, West Virginia safely.

The singer Aliyah ( spelling is off) was a weight and balance accident. Air Midwest mentioned above. Fine Air in Miami comes to mind but that may have been a cargo shift.

Kalvado - it is aircraft based.

As far as working fine....nah not really. Look at EK 407. Crew error in a input almost resulted in a hull loss . Not a direct correlation...but a contributer.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 11): 1) weigh each baggage cart, and paint that amount on the cart. Have the ground equipment maintenance guys remark that weight once or twice a year, or when the equipment is serviced. 2) weigh baggage cart upon departing baggage carousel for outbound flight. You'd have to install a vehicle scale. 3) subrract weigh in step 1) from weight in step 2), (for each baggage cart going to the outbound flight), and voila! And the technology even exists to weigh the carts in motion and do everything electronically Just ask the trucking industry...

Have you evern worked the ramp? If you have, you'll know that that would be an extremely inefficient way to do things. I don't even know where to begin but for one, all bags are not staged like that. Especially in a hub. You will have bags upon bags going "tail-to-tail" as it's called up to 10 minutes before departure. Sometimes less. Everyone doesn't arrive at the same time, as you know.

The bottom line is that the current system works. And I think everyone's touched up pretty well as to why what the ramp and captain did was a perfectly legal thing to do. When I use to work for EV, back in the days when almost all flights had 60 bags on a CR2; when you had a close "max" i.e. 50 pax, 70 bags and say 65 bags checked for the flight. You ensure the gate agent gets as many carry-on bags on the a/c as possible. Because with those 65 checked bags, you don't know how many are heavy (they count twice-60lbs vs. 30lbs) and you have no idea how many gate claims you will have (they count as 20lbs if they go in the bin). So you control what you can. You get kid count and you make sure you have the least amount of gate checks as possible.

Quoting kalvado (Reply 21): And introducing specifics is exactly what happened here - airline increasing _actual average_ weight of cabin passenger (person+ carry-on+personal item), but pretending things did not change. As far as I understand, this is 100% legal and not bending any rules - but it definitely means taking a bite into safety margins built in by regulator and manufacturer.

The weight of the bags were already factored into the cabin weight..so I don't follow.

Quoting chapavaeaa (Reply 29): The singer Aliyah ( spelling is off) was a weight and balance accident.

Had nothing to do with w&b practices but everything to do with putting too much stuff on the airplane and ingnoring defined rules. I'd suggest ou do a little research on the crash. I wouldn't even call it an accident.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 11): 1) weigh each baggage cart, and paint that amount on the cart. Have the ground equipment maintenance guys remark that weight once or twice a year, or when the equipment is serviced. 2) weigh baggage cart upon departing baggage carousel for outbound flight. You'd have to install a vehicle scale. 3) subrract weigh in step 1) from weight in step 2), (for each baggage cart going to the outbound flight), and voila!

How conventional.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 30): The bottom line is that the current system works. And I think everyone's touched up pretty well as to why what the ramp and captain did was a perfectly legal thing to do. When I use to work for EV, back in the days when almost all flights had 60 bags on a CR2; when you had a close "max" i.e. 50 pax, 70 bags and say 65 bags checked for the flight. You ensure the gate agent gets as many carry-on bags on the a/c as possible. Because with those 65 checked bags, you don't know how many are heavy (they count twice-60lbs vs. 30lbs) and you have no idea how many gate claims you will have (they count as 20lbs if they go in the bin). So you control what you can. You get kid count and you make sure you have the least amount of gate checks as possible.

All true. Given the safety margins for takeoff/landing, being off a little bit (which every single flight is) isn't a huge deal. This would be an issue if flights were being dispatched with every intent of using 5,500 of a 6,000ft. runway to takeoff, but the margins are much greater.

Quoting chapavaeaa (Reply 29): The singer Aliyah ( spelling is off) was a weight and balance accident.

I specifically said airliner with this accident in mind as to exclude it, yet pointlessly you bring it up.  

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 27): when was the last time an American airliner, regional or bigger, crashed because of being overweight or having its weight & balance off?

Quoting chapavaeaa (Reply 29): Fine Air in Miami comes to mind but that may have been a cargo shift.

That was a DC-8 Super on its way to South America with denim on board, the load wasn't secured properly and shifted to the rear on take off causing the plane to stall and slide across 72nd Ave Milam Dairy Rd and hit the businesses across the street. I was there about 2 weeks later and talked to the store owner whose store the plane came to a stop at. That had nothing to do with weight & balance issues at all. I've read the CVR transcript very sad that those 3 onboard and the one man in the parking lot were killed.. senseless.



[Edited 2012-05-17 13:31:36]