airline is going to start weighing passengers

[Bandit_Driver]

Is that sarcasm?

Not sarcasm. The aircraft would have been flyable with proper control rigging.

As I recall the crew was not found at fault for this accident. They followed correct procedures and believe they had a good aircraft and valid W & B. The main cause of the accident was the improper rigging of the flight controls by mx. The NTSB found faults in the mx program, mx training program, W & B program, and the company itself. They did note a contributing factor to the accident was the aircraft was outside the mfr's W & B envelope. The NTSB also found the FAA at fault for poor oversight of the airline...

 

[jwp_145]

Much like maximum bag size for a carryon; maybe we're heading towards maximum weight to fly.

SWA is the only airline I've seen actively policing the fatties. They have no problem telling someone they are too fat to occupy a single seat.

I deadhead and nonrev extensively, and there is NOTHING worse than some fat blob taking up 30% of your airspace. I love it when they deftly ask the FA for the seat belt extender.

They need to be proactive about they hugeness and buy 2 seats. The fact that they expect us to share their gravitational burden is sickening.

I'm all for weighing each pax... I'm sure IATA is going to be shocked when they realize the average passenger is nowhere near 170...well at least the average American passenger.

 

[Roger Roger]

I didn't know that. That's pretty badass.

That's way cool, I wonder how the system compensates for temperature, ambient pressure, and even variables in how each strut is serviced.

Is that sarcasm?

If a Cherokee will do it (I mean in theory) you wouldn't even notice in a part 25 airliner.

 

[tlove482]

That's way cool, I wonder how the system compensates for temperature, ambient pressure, and even variables in how each strut is serviced.

If a Cherokee will do it (I mean in theory) you wouldn't even notice in a part 25 airliner.

It's not the weight, but the aft CG that concerns me.