thoughts on aircrew weight limitations

[SarDragon]

If I miss a ride, I miss a ride. I was more concerned about the lack of the extra set of eyes on the search, and the missed learning opportunity. I make each mission I go on an oppotunity to learn something new, and have seldom failed at that.

[Short Field]

This post seems to be more against "fatties" than an aircraft safety issue.  Sure glad I am in the CIVILIAN auxillary to the USAF and not the USAF AUX.

[Flying Pig]

On the Fossett search, because of the high D.A. I saw a few crews that had to mix and match people.  Weight and Balance is the unarguable factor.   Either you can or you cant.  If your over gross, the PIC has some decisions to make.  Im all for fitness, but there is no way we can start setting up crew quals based on Physical Fitness standards other than those already set by the FAA.  But really, if the weight and balance says your good, your good.  Go fly. 

From what I understand about the new glass cockpits with all the hi tech auto pilot.  Sound like you could do a grid search on auto pilot and let the pic look out the window and leave the scanner at home.  Of course there is always that look out for the guy thing the pilot is suppose to do...

Ahhhhhh.......I think thats where your suppossed to use the happy faces to let us all know you were kidding!

[RickFranz]

You are right 

Sorry about that.

[Short Field]

The terrain display, GPS system,  and autopilot are really great innovations on the new airplanes.   Just need to program the autopilot not to try to fly through mountains...    

[Mustang]

I'm a "fattie" and also flew as a mission pilot on the Fossett search.  The C-182 is an immensely capable airplane, and even at max gross weight, I was able to fly myself and my crew of two to altitudes just shy of 14,000' without a problem.  The C-206 is even more capable.

That said, we are running into real problems with useful load on the turbocharged G-1000-equipped C-182s.  These birds have really gained weight with the 24-G seats, airbag shoulder harnesses, oxygen systems, etc.  Add the extra CAP gear, satphone, etc and it's a two-place airplane with full fuel, and a three-place airplane with fuel to the tabs, but only if the crew and their gear are modest in weight. 

Some will say that we don't need turbocharged airplanes, I haven't made up my mind on that one completely but I do appreciate that one's performance and thus safety margin goes way down at the density altitudes those of us in the high mountains have to face. Unfortunately, the decisionmakers in this organization are mostly flatlanders (and sea-level ones at that), so they don't quite understand what we're dealing with. To see what it's like, limit yourself to 1800 RPM in a 172 or 18" MP in a 182 sometime--for takeoff, climb, everything.  Head on up to 4-5000' and see how she does.

With the payload capacity of the turbocharged G-1000-equipped C-182s being so limited, however, I have suggested to the powers that be that mountainous states be equipped with turbo'ed C-206s instead of 182s.  This would make huge strides in regaining lost utility as the C-182 line as gotten heavier in recent model years.

[Flying Pig]

Turbos would be great..but we would need to a huge increase in our maintenance budget to go along with the planes.

[0]

I agree that we all (myself included) should maintain a certain weight to be part of air crew.  Maybe it's time for "Biggest Loser CAP Aircrew"

[Flying Pig]

I think its almost a self fixing problem,  If you keep showing up to searches, and keep find yourself left behind after the W&B is completed....you'll get the hint.

[jimmydeanno]

Unless it is the pilot and observer that take up the W&B so the 140 lb scanner gets left behind...

[SarDragon]

Unless it is the pilot and observer that take up the W&B so the 140 lb scanner gets left behind...

BTDT - 180 lb scanner.

[MIKE]

CAP should not have to purchase larger and/or more powerful airframes because our aircrew have too much mass... when factoring the posted useful load.  Part of the qualification process should include the weight issue such that the aircraft is never overweight, such that a crew member is left on the ramp.  I don't think it is unreasonable to say that one must be a maximum of X lbs and Y tall to serve as aircrew on a particular airframe.

[jimmydeanno]

Unless it is the pilot and observer that take up the W&B so the 140 lb scanner gets left behind...

BTDT - 180 lb scanner.

My wife weighs about 110 and had to be left behind during a SAREX when she was going for her scanner rating.  Fuel was at the tabs on a 172 and there wasn't much gear.  I've been told I can't go and I'm about 150ish, again, fuel at the tabs on a 182.  It does get really annoying when it happens multiple times because of the time that is wasted.

[Eclipse]

CAP should not have to purchase larger and/or more powerful airframes because our aircrew have too much mass... when factoring the posted useful load.  Part of the qualification process should include the weight issue such that the aircraft is never overweight, such that a crew member is left on the ramp.  I don't think it is unreasonable to say that one must be a maximum of X lbs and Y tall to serve as aircrew on a particular airframe.

OK, so now we're limiting height, too?

You're going to have a lot of pretty hanger queens.

W&B issues should be worked out by the AOBD or RUL as crews and sorties are being planned. There should be no "ramp surprises" that leave a crewmember waving goodbye to the plane.

This is >why< we have bases operations staff, to work this kind of stuff out.

[MIKE]

I've heard talk that some taller people have trouble fitting in the Airvans.

[Eclipse]

Heck, I have trouble fitting in most cars, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to fly, as long as
I can keep my gangly arms and legs out of the way.

I have yet to see a 172 be able to take more than three adults in mission mode no matter
what they weigh, the 182's were a gift from the Lord.

[Flying Pig]

Fitness and height and weight standards for volunteer aircrews.  I have been a law enforcement aircrew member for almost 4 years now.  I can guarantee you that we in LE are famous for not being late to dinner.  If we can't get our guys on the ball......Im not seeing CAP being very successful at accomplishing it.   

[Eclipse]

^^^ Excellent point - LEA's and FD's all over the country struggle with this exact issue, and if they can't get their people to step up at the point of a paycheck, good luck for us.

(and that doesn't address those of us who could go on a liquid diet for two months but would still have the same sized arms and legs)

[RickFranz]

I guess if we went to UAV's that would take care of all our air crew problems...

[davedove]

I'm not currently part of an aircrew, but I am a large guy (height and girth), so I got to thinking.  Assuming the 500 lbs. is about right for total aircrew weight, with three people in the aircrew, that means an average of 167 lbs. per aircrew member.  Looking at the height/weight standards, if you use the AF standards, that means a man would have to be between 5'4" and 5'5" to fall within the standards.

How many men are you going to be able to recruit that are under that height?  There just aren't very many of that size out there in the population.  Women fit within the standards much easier, because they are smaller on average than men.

If the average weight per person is 200 lbs., that raises the height to 5'11" or 6', so that is a lot easier to fill, but still leaves out a lot of guys who are over 6'.

Of course, this is using the more strict AF standards, not the more more relaxed CAP standards, so it would still be hard for CAP to find the people.

I agree we all need to lose some of the weight, especially me, but CAP has a hard enough time getting people now.  Something like this would indeed gut the program.