thoughts on aircrew weight limitations

Started by DrJbdm, March 31, 2008, 04:55:05 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DrJbdm

What would the thoughts be if CAP made a regulation regarding limitations on weight for aircrew members? Just for the record, I have not heard if CAP is even considering such a move but I would support such a move for safety of flight reasons if it came about.

  Without looking at any current hard data, it seems that most of our planes have severe weight limitations once loaded with fuel, I believe in most cases it is limited to just over 500 pounds. With the weight gain our members seem to be having these days, you couldn't have a scanner on board if the pilot and observer both weighed more then 200 pounds. I think CAP should set a weight limit of at least the CAP weight limit for wearing the AF uniforms; although I think it needs to be much stricter.

  I know there would be many pissed off members if they where suddenly forced from the cockpit because of weight, the only other option is to remove the scanner from the plane. But the problem still exists in that with our expanding belly we have had problems getting out of an aircraft quickly in an emergency, I have noticed this first hand in a engine fire on start up. we may also have problems with the flight controls having full range of motion in some cases.

  It's an issue that CAP may be forced to take a hard look at.  What does everyone on here think?

Eclipse

Quote from: DrJbdm on March 31, 2008, 04:55:05 AMWhat does everyone on here think?

I think the last time I checked pilots were required to perform a weight and balance, which means that respective aircrew weight is a self-limiting factor.

"That Others May Zoom"

wingnut

have you seen the large pickles(Nomex flight suits) that show up for missions, CAP is reflective of the general population, FAT,FAT,FAT

your right we should  all do a National weigh in

me included

CFI_Ed

Quote from: DrJbdm on March 31, 2008, 04:55:05 AM
  Without looking at any current hard data, it seems that most of our planes have severe weight limitations once loaded with fuel, I believe in most cases it is limited to just over 500 pounds.
Depends on the airplane type -  you are probably correct when referencing the 172S with fuel to the tabs; maybe correct when talking about 172P; 182T G1000 - the problem is the landing weight.
Ed Angala, Lt Col, CAP
Oklahoma Wing/DO

DrJbdm

The population unfortunately is getting fatter and fatter, as are our members. I have to struggle to maintain my weight, it's just far to easy to gain weight and not even notice you are doing it. a few years ago I put on over 50 pounds and it was so gradual I never really noticed I was doing it, I had to go to the gym almost every day to get the weight off and now I have to go about three days a week to keep it off.

  I know the different classes of aircraft have a different take off weight and landing weight, I'm not sure of the 182T and the GA-8. But with the C-172R we are always at gross max take off weight in CAP with the combo of equipment, aircrew and fuel at the tabs, in order to land we have to fly for a while to burn off enough fuel to get our landing weight in order. I just think with no strict weight standards, we are going to end up having a problem. the new 182T w/ G1000 doesn't help that much in the weight issue, it may allow a little bit more wiggle room but not by much. Aviation is dangerous enough without adding to the problem with overweight aircrew.

  I know the requirement to have to do a weight and balance will help in some regard but I don't think thats enough. with out a strict standard for weight we will not be getting our pilots motivated to lose significant weight. If I knew I had to be below say 210 pounds in order to fly for CAP then that might motivate me to lose weight if I had a weight issue. Yes, we would lose many members who simply didn't have the inner strength needed to lose weight but thats ok, we would also improve our image and be able to recruit better candidates.



 


Eclipse

Quote from: DrJbdm on March 31, 2008, 02:14:06 PMIf I knew I had to be below say 210 pounds in order to fly for CAP then that might motivate me to lose weight if I had a weight issue. Yes, we would lose many members who simply didn't have the inner strength needed to lose weight but thats ok, we would also improve our image and be able to recruit better candidates.

(emphasis mine).

No, its not ok, not at all, in any way, shape, or form.  And if you think it is, you're entirely missing the point of CAP.

We are not the military, we are not Jenny Craig, and we are not Weight Watchers. Pilots already, in general, are more fit and monitored than the general population because of the requirement for regular physicals, etc.

We are also an organization that is struggling to maintain readiness without all the silly "extra value" people try to place on their members.

You yank flight privileges from pilots who are competent, within reason for the airframe, and active members otherwise, and you gut the program overnight.

There is a difference between not looking good in a flight bag and not being able to competently and safely fly an airplane.

"That Others May Zoom"

mikeylikey

This issue can go both ways.  If we have a FAT pilot, then get someone who is stick and bones skinny to fly right seat.  Then balance out the back.  This is such a non-issue. 

If we are going to regulate anything, perhaps taking the 90 year old CFI and O-ride pilot out of the seat would be more logical.  In my pre-flight training days I have declined to fly certain missions because of the person doing the actual flying.  The whole "this guy is 80 years old, is he going to have a heart attack and am I ready for that while mid-flight".  Now, since I do fly (but not for CAP) I am more than capable of taking control if the pilot decides to expire while driving me around.

I see age more of a factor than weight.  I honestly have not come across many FAT aircrews in CAP.  I do see FAT wing kings trying to climb in and out of CAP planes though, and I laugh.......
What's up monkeys?

CFI_Ed

If the point of the original thought was for US (me too) to lose weight, I agree  :'(.   The point gets lost when it's posed as a Flight Ops issue.

Ed Angala, Lt Col, CAP
Oklahoma Wing/DO

Eclipse

What commonly happens is that the little fellers team up with those afflicted by gigantism (me), and everything is fine.

Getting off my FPOC and moving is going to be good for my heart, however it is not going to reduce
the length of my arms and legs, which has been infinitely more of an issue for me than weight.

By definition there are no "fat aircrews" (by aggregate).


"That Others May Zoom"

arosea

Bigger people = Bigger airplanes and more powerful engines

DrJbdm

#10
Eclipse, it is entirely ok to limit weight of Aircrew members, we only have so many small members as it is. besides, theres other factors involved when it comes to having big people in small airplanes.

QuoteWe are not the military, we are not Jenny Craig, and we are not Weight Watchers. Pilots already, in general, are more fit and monitored than the general population because of the requirement for regular physicals, etc.

QuoteWe are also an organization that is struggling to maintain readiness without all the silly "extra value" people try to place on their members.

  the flight physicals have nothing to do with keeping us thin enough for flying, we as active pilots do seem to try to keep the weight down but there are many who do not.

  What is this "silly extra value that people try and place on their members"? If you are saying that in CAP we have no standards and shouldn't have any standards because we want everyone to feel good about themselves and be able to serve then you are missing the point. Doing so robs CAP of the service it could do if we maintained strict standards of REAL readiness instead of what appears to be CAP baby standards.

  restricting fat pilots from flying as part of an aircrew will not gut the program overnight, I think you may already find flights limited with the weight and balance that has to be filled out for every flight. I have already seen some members not being able to fly because they and the crew where just too fat to safely fit with in the margins for the proper weight and balance.

  Cessna 172s and 182s where not designed to be flown by people who are  significantly overweight they are light aircraft that carries a really light load. they are honestly getting to the point that they are only able to safely carry 2 people because of the increase in body fat of the general population. Pretty soon CAP will have to remove the scanner from the back because we can no longer safely fly with one.

  The point is, we need to watch our image both as individuals and as the U.S. Air Force Aux.. we have to keep ourselves as fit as humanly possible for the jobs that we do.  We owe it to CAP, the USAF, our customers and to ourselves to maintain physical fitness standards and body fat standards for our operational people IE: ground team and aircrew.

   As PIC I tend to be very picky with who I want on my crew. I'm responsible for them. call me a dirty word if you want, but I am looking out for the complete welfare of me and my crew, both in a safety and comfort standpoint.

mikeylikey

^ I am "heavy" but not because of being fat.  I was FAT at one time, but through a weight training program and running am no longer that way.  I am very close to not being allowed in AF-style uniforms because my muscle weighs more than any FAT I have.  So, I am in excellent health, but should not fly because I am too heavy?? 


Quote from: DrJbdm on March 31, 2008, 05:31:19 PM
..... besides, theres other factors involved when it comes to having big people in small airplanes.

Like what?  Other than balancing out, what other factors come up? 

What's up monkeys?

DrJbdm

I know muscle weights more then fat, I have the same problem. our airplanes are small, personally I think CAP should have gone with a larger airframe to carry out our missions but thats a different story.

  comfort can be a problem when you have two large members trying to sit shoulder to shoulder in such a thin small frame of the 172, use of the flight controls may be a problem as well in some cases of extreme body size.

  I know any time you bring up weight it can be a very sensitive issue, alot of people are very sensitive about being barred from doing something because of their weight. I know that there's not many people who choose to become fat, it just unfortunately sneaks up on us as we slow down and do less moving around. the junk foods that are everywhere are also a big problem. Heck even our kids are getting fat in schools. it's an epidemic.

RiverAux

#13
Yes, a proper weight and balance ensures that any individual flight is safe in that area.  So, there is no issue there.

The issue for the organization is having enough little people qualified as aircrew to make up for the big people.  Right now this is an entirely random process and doesn't always work out for the best. 

If you have a very heavy aircrew member there are only so many people small enough to be able to fly in the plane with them. That big person does have less actual value to CAP (as far as aircrews go) since they cannot fly with a lot of people and can only be used on a certain percentage of missions.  Simple fact of life.

So, a person that weighs little is far more valuable to the aircrew person than a heavy person.   If we're talking about a small pilot that is even better since a large pilot automatically has precedence and you must find 2 small people to go with him.  A big scanner can be left behind if necessary. 

Now, I don't think a generic weight limit to be an aircrew member is appropriate since due to the weight and balance calculation we do have some wiggle room.  However, I don't think it would be out of line at all to set a general rule that aircrew members must meet the height/weight standards to wear AF uniforms (not that they have to, just that they could).  This would give incentive for the big folks to lose enough weight to meet the standard and give some minimal assurance that there won't be too many people in the program that would bust the weight/balance for you. 

smj58501

 :-X (Rolls his eyes in agony and cried aloud "NOOOOOOOOOOOO not another weight topic... getting as bad as uniforms")
Sean M. Johnson
Lt Col, CAP
Chief of Staff
ND Wing CAP

N Harmon

Quote from: DrJbdm on March 31, 2008, 05:31:19 PMThe point is, we need to watch our image both as individuals and as the U.S. Air Force Aux.. we have to keep ourselves as fit as humanly possible for the jobs that we do.  We owe it to CAP, the USAF, our customers and to ourselves to maintain physical fitness standards and body fat standards for our operational people IE: ground team and aircrew.

Wait. Of all of the reasons there are to limit aircrews to officers under a certain size, you're choosing our organization's need to project a specific "image"? I do not think that is a very good one.
NATHAN A. HARMON, Capt, CAP
Monroe Composite Squadron

Pylon

So... let's see here:
  • Flight Medical performed by a licensed Physician, certifying a member to fly aircraft... CHECK

  • Bi-annual flight review by a license CFI, certifying a member to fly aircraft... CHECK

  • CAPF 5 checkride by CAP Check Pilot, certifying a member to fly CAP aircraft... CHECK

  • Weight and Balance performed as required, and plane can operate safely... CHECK

  • Operational Risk Management matrix fillout as required (well, at least in NER), and plane and crew can operate safely.... CHECK

  • FRO says the crew is safe to fly... CHECK

But you still want to disqualify these members for CAP flight because everyone from the flight medical physician, to the CFI, to the CAP Check Pilot to the weight and balance sheet all missed something critical indicating that an overweight member is not capable of, nor safe to, fly a Civil Air Patrol aircraft?  Tell me; what is it that those processes, procedures and checks would not catch?

I don't care what your weight is; If everyone from the flight doc, to the CFI and Check pilot, to the weight and balance sheet, to the FRO and ORM matrix all say that a member of whatever weight is good to go on an aircrew with me, I'm more than happy to be a part of the mission when them and get it done, while you're on the ground dreaming up unnecessary requirements.

Sounds like you're really more interested in the aesthetic dimension of it all, and really not anything related to sound science, safety, or realistic mission requirements.  That's a shame.  Perhaps if we spent less time devaluing some of our contributing volunteers and more time refining our actual mission capability, we'd be of much better service to our customers.
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

SarDragon

I think the primary concern here is the number of crewmembers that can fly a mission when two of them are heavier than average. I was unable to fly a mission some months ago because of that.

I'm 5'10", 190 lb dressed to fly, and the other two guys each outweighed me by 60 pounds or more. The plane (a 182) was topped off for fuel, and we would have been over the weight limitation if I went along. If the fuel had been just at the tabs, it would have been close.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

RickFranz

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...
Rick Franz, Col, CAP
KSWG CC
Gill Rob Wilson #2703
IC1

Eclipse

Quote from: SarDragon on April 01, 2008, 01:15:28 AM
I think the primary concern here is the number of crewmembers that can fly a mission when two of them are heavier than average. I was unable to fly a mission some months ago because of that.

I'm 5'10", 190 lb dressed to fly, and the other two guys each outweighed me by 60 pounds or more. The plane (a 182) was topped off for fuel, and we would have been over the weight limitation if I went along. If the fuel had been just at the tabs, it would have been close.

So...the alternative might have been you had no pilot and no mission.  Your AOBD or IC should be making operational decisions about mission execution Are we concerned about finding people, etc., or more worried about who gets to go for a ride?

There have been plenty of times when my in-spec gargantuism precluded me from flying, K-SARA-SARA.  Either somebody topped off the 172s we used to have, or two other big guys were slated as well, my personal ops tempo and qualifications mean I am not concerned about missing a ride now and then.

There have been other times when my specific skill and experience was requested and the aircrew was limited or scaled to allow me to get my hugeness folded into the rear or right seat.

If you have so few aircrew that you can't creatively schedule flights that give everyone a turn, you need to look there, not limit the aircrew you already have qualified from flying at all.

And for all the noise about recruiting, I don't see a line outside of people begging to fly for CAP. At a quick mental survey, in my wing if you precluded the tall guys who are heavy but in-spec, (causin' they is tall drinks of water), and the ones who are legit overweight but still rockin' pilots, you would basically
shut down an encampment, a flight school, and all but stand-down ES.

Excellent plan, however it is self-fulfilling, because the little-feller pilots that were left would quickly be worn into little numbs, so you'd never have to worry about them getting fat.  Quitting on burnout, maybe, but not fat.

"That Others May Zoom"