Air New Zealand now weighing passengers before they board flights
cbsnews.com
cbsnews.com
Also, I think I've been weighed going on smaller planes, say the float plane from Victoria to Vancouver. Am I remembering wrong?
I'm really not a beliver in "for your safety" as an excuse for anything, but knowing the proper weight and balance of the plane seems trivially justifiable, and completely worth any intrusion that comes with weighing people.
> a software glitch was responsible for the incident. According to the Seattle Times, the tailstrikes occurred largely as the result of a bug in a program sold by a Swedish firm called DynamicSource. The program is supposed to deliver “crucial weight and balance data” that pilots enter into their flight computers to help determine stuff like “how much thrust the engines will provide and at what speed the jet will be ready to lift off.” In this case, the tool delivered faulty data that “seriously undervalued [the] weights for the airplanes.”
...the data [delivered] was on the order of 20,000 to 30,000 pounds light.
I don't think this bug is something that would have been resolved by weighing passengers or not.There have been multiple sensationalized instances where an overweight passenger has been asked to move, to much outrage and outcry. This prevents that for the price of one-time outrage.
From memory, I believe the standard practice for weight and balance is to use a standard average/median passenger weight, which is proving troublesome in a day and age with rising obesity weights.
It also reminds me of what I once heard from someone in the aviation industry: "The laws of physics don't care about your feelings. If they say the plane is too heavy to fly, it's not going to fly no matter how much you cry."
I doubt this will lead to reliable numbers then. Heavier folks will be more likely to feel ashamed (which is unfortunate, but probably true).
Results will be off by 5% or more, simply because heavier people won't volunteer.
And if the airline is fine with the result being wrong by 5% or more, they might as well just taken the average weight of 5 people in the office.
Doing something like this by making it either optional or "optional" isn't a very good strategy for being either consistent or useful.
More accurate readings = less cost for fuel.