![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Does the average weight calculation for passengers on commercial
flights include an allowance for their carry-on luggage? The reason I ask is that, if the carry-on weight is shifted to the hold, calculations that use an assumed average weight for passengers and their carry-ons in conjunction with actual weighing for luggage in the hold may produce estimates of take-off weight that are too high. For example, if the average passenger has 10 lbs of carry-on and this is incorporated into the estimated weight used for that passenger, and he is suddenly required to check the carry-on, the assumed weight will be too high by 10 lbs. This, combined with the 10 lbs extra of measured weight in the luggage in the hold, would make the take-off weight calculation 10 lbs high. Multiply that by hundreds of passengers, and you have a weight that could be thousands of pounds off. Has anyone considered this? A too-high estimate could affect flight characteristics and might also waste fuel (since more would be loaded than needed). -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote:
Does the average weight calculation for passengers on commercial flights include an allowance for their carry-on luggage? The reason I ask is that, if the carry-on weight is shifted to the hold, calculations that use an assumed average weight for passengers and their carry-ons in conjunction with actual weighing for luggage in the hold may produce estimates of take-off weight that are too high. For example, if the average passenger has 10 lbs of carry-on and this is incorporated into the estimated weight used for that passenger, and he is suddenly required to check the carry-on, the assumed weight will be too high by 10 lbs. This, combined with the 10 lbs extra of measured weight in the luggage in the hold, would make the take-off weight calculation 10 lbs high. Multiply that by hundreds of passengers, and you have a weight that could be thousands of pounds off. Has anyone considered this? A too-high estimate could affect flight characteristics and might also waste fuel (since more would be loaded than needed). Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I can't take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA would be shuffling through company secret information if I were to check it on a business trip. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Emily wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote: Does the average weight calculation for passengers on commercial flights include an allowance for their carry-on luggage? The reason I ask is that, if the carry-on weight is shifted to the hold, calculations that use an assumed average weight for passengers and their carry-ons in conjunction with actual weighing for luggage in the hold may produce estimates of take-off weight that are too high. For example, if the average passenger has 10 lbs of carry-on and this is incorporated into the estimated weight used for that passenger, and he is suddenly required to check the carry-on, the assumed weight will be too high by 10 lbs. This, combined with the 10 lbs extra of measured weight in the luggage in the hold, would make the take-off weight calculation 10 lbs high. Multiply that by hundreds of passengers, and you have a weight that could be thousands of pounds off. Has anyone considered this? A too-high estimate could affect flight characteristics and might also waste fuel (since more would be loaded than needed). Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I can't take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA would be shuffling through company secret information if I were to check it on a business trip. This is a good point. The TSA apparently doesn't understand that a person/terrorist can smuggle fluids taped to one's leg, or other part of the body, or even shove a vial/tube up their butt. This type of over-reaction is typical of an agency that has no idea of what to do, or in fact what the mission is. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Terry wrote:
Emily wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: snip Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I can't take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA would be shuffling through company secret information if I were to check it on a business trip. This is a good point. The TSA apparently doesn't understand that a person/terrorist can smuggle fluids taped to one's leg, or other part of the body, or even shove a vial/tube up their butt. This type of over-reaction is typical of an agency that has no idea of what to do, or in fact what the mission is. I thought about smuggling contact solution in my bra, but figured if I were to get caught, they'd nail me under the pilot insecurity act. So I figured I can either lose my certificates or lose my medical after I get an eye infection. Not sure which is preferable. You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() This is a good point. The TSA apparently doesn't understand that a person/terrorist can smuggle fluids taped to one's leg, or other part of the body, or even shove a vial/tube up their butt. This type of over-reaction is typical of an agency that has no idea of what to do, or in fact what the mission is. You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board. That will happen when a plot uses that method. I am not looking forward to that day. Ron Lee |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ron Lee wrote:
You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board. That will happen when a plot uses that method. I am not looking forward to that day. Think of the fun one could have with free rectal exams, however. Makes me appreciate the fact that I never aspired to be a TSA security agent. -- Peter |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:39:16 -0500, Emily
wrote: You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board. The TSA is already ****ing us... And you call it a "rectal exam"... You're kinky, Emily... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 04:54:38 GMT, Grumman-581 wrote:
You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board. The TSA is already ****ing us... And you call it a "rectal exam"... You're kinky, Emily... it is good to be kinky :-() AFAIK you are only reimbursed a certain amount of money per kilo of luggage when lost. So now you are forced to check in your laptop (be sure to encrypt your harddrive [1]). You only get this per kilo price when the laptop got lost. Other point: there has to be the name on the prescription or on the meds - matching your name on the ticket. Well, it is uncommon in central Europe that you keep your prescription (it goes to the insurance for reimbursment), and nobody writes the name on the medicament (hell, everybody can write his name on his medicaments). travel by train might become more interesting here in central Europe. distances are relative short, total time is similar, train has more comfort. #m [1] if you use public means of communication then all your data is well known by the US and British intelligence, so there is no real need for encryption ... -- Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Emily wrote:
Terry wrote: Emily wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: snip Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I can't take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA would be shuffling through company secret information if I were to check it on a business trip. This is a good point. The TSA apparently doesn't understand that a person/terrorist can smuggle fluids taped to one's leg, or other part of the body, or even shove a vial/tube up their butt. This type of over-reaction is typical of an agency that has no idea of what to do, or in fact what the mission is. I thought about smuggling contact solution in my bra, but figured if I were to get caught, they'd nail me under the pilot insecurity act. So I figured I can either lose my certificates or lose my medical after I get an eye infection. Not sure which is preferable. You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board. So this is what it's come to. In middle school we smuggled our cigarettes around in our bras to avoid nic fits before class, before exams, etc. Now we need to smuggle our contact solution in our bra, just to avoid getting our eyes irritated or infected on an airplane ride. Progress is great. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Meghan Taylor" wrote in message .... I care that I can't take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight .... I thought about smuggling contact solution in my bra,... ...I can either lose my certificates or lose my medical ..... So this is what it's come to... Now we need to smuggle our contact solution in our bra, Has it occurred to anyone to simply wear glasses on longer flights? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
more radial fans like fw190? | jt | Military Aviation | 51 | August 28th 04 04:22 AM |
RV-7a baggage area | David Smith | Home Built | 32 | December 15th 03 04:08 AM |