Safety board wants airline passengers weighed

Safety board wants airline passengers weighed

WASHINGTON (AP) --Air travel would be safer if airlines weighed their
passengers from time to time to make sure they know how much weight their
planes are carrying, the National Transportation Safety Board says.

Following its investigation into a commuter plane crash last year in North
Carolina, the NTSB said on Thursday that airlines should at least
periodically make passengers step on a scale.

The safety board also recommended the Federal Aviation Administration
require improvements to training, oversight and procedures for maintenance
personnel.

The crash of US Airways Express Flight 5481 at Charlotte-Douglas Airport
killed 21 people, the deadliest U.S. aviation accident in nearly 2 1/2
years.

The Beech 1900, operated by Air Midwest, was virtually uncontrollable
because of two fatal mistakes, the safety board concluded.

First, the airline's guidelines for estimating the weight of passengers and
baggage were inaccurate. The pilots, therefore, didn't realize the plane's
rear section was too heavy.

Second, mechanics had improperly rigged cables connected to the elevator,
the tail flap that controls the up-and-down direction of the aircraft's
nose. The errors meant the elevator's downward motion was restricted to
half its normal range, according to the NTSB.

Without a fully maneuverable elevator, the pilots couldn't force the nose
of the plane down to compensate for its heavy tail, investigators said.

As a result, the plane pitched sharply upward just seconds after takeoff
for Greer, South Carolina, then fell from the sky.

Soon afterward, the FAA ordered airlines to weigh some of their passengers
to determine the accuracy of current guidelines -- for example, adults in
winter were calculated to weigh 185 pounds on average.

The survey showed what many suspected: Passengers and their bags had gotten
heavier. The FAA issued temporary guidelines adding up to 10 pounds to its
estimate for passengers and 5 pounds to checked luggage.

Weight and balance issues
The NTSB said those guidelines don't go far enough. The board recommended
the FAA require airlines operating planes with 10 or more seats to weigh
passengers periodically to determine when they might be heavier -- for
example, in December when they wear heavy coats and carry presents.

The FAA is working on that. Since June, a committee has been examining the
average weights of passengers and baggage and how they vary according to
season or geography.

Debby McElroy, Regional Airline Association president, said her group is
working with the FAA on the weight and balance issues identified by the
NTSB.

"We agree that further study is necessary, to ensure that air carrier
weight and balance programs provide the highest level of safety," McElroy
said.

The committee is expected to make recommendations next month.

NTSB investigators also found flaws in the way mechanics were trained and
supervised, how their work was checked and how Air Midwest controlled the
quality of its maintenance. Those problems led to the improperly rigged
elevator cables on the Charlotte flight.

As part of a series of recommendations on maintenance, the NTSB said the
FAA should require that work on key flight control systems, including
elevator cables, be checked upon completion.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency already is working on the
issues raised by the investigation.

Two Democratic members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, James Oberstar of Wisconsin and Peter DeFazio of Oregon, asked
the Transportation Department's inspector general to report on whether
outsourced maintenance work affects airline safety.

Air Midwest contracted maintenance to Raytheon Aerospace (now known as
Vertex Aerospace), which hired mechanics from Structural Modification and
Repair Technicians Inc.



-



-



-



-



-



-


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you consider the content of this post to be particularly offensive, disgusting or plain illegal,
it is probably 'designer abuse', a message designed specifically to hurt the remailer's reputation/existence.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain
Some people hate this remailer so badly that, for example, they did not hesitate to celebrate the death of 148 French tourists in a plane crash.
Those people seceded from the human race, so don't hesitate to report them directly to the police.
2004/01/03 (contact ) Blue.Jay celebrates
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain
2004/01/19 Len Sassaman chooses that moment to bring his support to Blue.Jay
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

More about the subject will be available http://frogadmin.yi.org/HOS/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28 Feb 2004 03:40:52 +0100, Jean C wrote:


You know it is amazing how Jean C can post with out even looking or
putting her hands on a keyboard.

Hey NR-how is the photography going CHUBBS?

You are still an idiot.

You are still a coward.

LV


Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQEALo+koPZAZfLgsEQL24wCfadOyeEtlIgCZ1S1MA7JEX+ FMIvgAoKVZ
OI32pSyKOsMmDDcLGN9ZZEg2
=pTfR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article ,
Casual Observer wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 03:30:45 GMT, Lady Veteran
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28 Feb 2004 03:40:52 +0100, Jean C wrote:


You know it is amazing how Jean C can post with out even looking or
putting her hands on a keyboard.

Hey NR-how is the photography going CHUBBS?

You are still an idiot.

You are still a coward.

LV


Lady Veteran

Lady Veteran - Why did you totally ignore the subject of the news clip
and only comment on who posted it.
Wouldn't you consider the news article material as an important safety
matter.

Casual Observer

It's not her gig, CO. She's not a contributing member to this (or any)
group--she's only here to troll and draw attention to herself.

AIRLINES' BIG LIE: Flying is SAFER than driving! (The airlines
deliver more safe passenger miles that autos do!)


It isn't passenger miles that is relevant when comparing car and
plane safety. It's the number of DEATHS which occur by the mode of
transportation divided by the (NUMBER OF VEHICLES) IN THAT MODE TIMES
THE (TIME) THOSE VEHICLES ARE IN OPERATION (the time those vehicles
are subject to a crash).

Just to show it isn't passengers X miles:

Suppose you have two airplanes: one plane from AIRLINE A and one plane
from AIRLINE B. Both planes make one flight from New York to L.A.
(3300 miles). On AIRLINE A you have 100 passengers. On AIRLINE B you
have only ONE passenger. At the end of the flight, both planes crash.
AIRLINE A had 100 passenger deaths for the 3300 miles flown(330,000
passenger/miles flown safely an instant before the crash) AIRLINE B
had ONE passenger death for the 3300 miles(only 3300 passenger/miles
flown safely an instant before the crash). Would you then say that
AIRLINE A had a hundred-fold better safety record than AIRLINE B? Of
couse not!

WE HAVE JUST ELIMINATED THE STANDARD WIVE'S TALE OF PASSENGER/MILES
AS RELEVANT TO COMPARING THE RELATIVE SAFETY OF ANY TWO AIRLINES. IT
IS ALSO IRRELEVANT IN COMPARING ANY TWO MODES OF TRANSPORT. THE NUMBER
OF PASSENGERS THAT HAPPEN TO BE RIDING ON ANY VEHICLE, AIR, LAND OR
SEA, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INHERENT SAFETY DESIGN OF THAT
PARTICULAR MODE OF TRANSPORT.

The safety of any mode of transport depends on the NUMBER OF VEHICLES
in that mode TIMES THE NUMBER OF HOURS THOSE VEHICLES ARE SUBJECT TO
CRASH (hours of operation)

HERE ARE THE FIGURES FOR COMPARING RELATIVE SAFETY OF CARS VS
COMMERCIAL JETS;

FOR ONE YEAR:

(for a mode of transportation)It's number of deaths per year DIVIDED
BY the number of vehicles in that mode TIMES the avdg number of hours
per year each vehicle is in service:
AUTO;
54,000 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years)DIVIDED BY
80,000,000 cars in service TIMES (3 hrs per day avdg per car TIMES
365=1095)OR 80 MILLION times 1095= OVER 80 BILLION car hours.

54,000 Divided by 80 BILLION= (A PEWNEY, ONLY) 1 DEATH PER 1,481,000
CAR Hours

AIRLINES:

200 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years) DIVIDED BY 3000
commercial jets in service TIMES (8 hrs avdg flight time per day TIMES
365= 2920) or 3000 times 8 times 365= 8,760,000 jet hours

200 DEATHS divided by 8,760,000= (A WHOPPING) ONE DEATH for only
43,800 airplane hours!

Figure it out and you'll see the car is much safer!
MISTERFACT @ YAHOO.COM

p.s. to further debunk MILES and the number of PASSENGERS who happen
to be in a vehicle(as factors in comparing relative safety),
imagine a fleet of 10,000 space ships, each traveling the speed of
light, each with ONE pilot. This represents INFINITE passenger/miles.
As soon as one of these space ships crashes- it can be said that space
ships are INFINITELY more dangerous that any other mode of transport-
yet in reality, only ONE of the fleet of 10,000 had a crash, only ONE
passenger died- which is better than can be said of 10,000 cars or
other modes of transport.
Finally- to compare the number of deaths in 80 million US cars with
a limited number of jumbo jets- is an unfair comparison. Take all the
people out of those cars for a year and put them in jumbo jets- the
skies would be so crowded with planes, you probably would not be able
to see the sun! Air safety would be a joke. If you are going to
compare auto death statistics with the airlines- use EQUAL comparisons
of EQUAL numbers of passengers: like the number of auto deaths in
Georgia compared to US airlines. If you want to compare the relative
safety of flying from New York to L.A.- compare that to the number of
auto deaths on Interstate 80! That is the route you would take from
New York to L.A. Don't include all the irrelevant deaths in the US
occuring on rural roads including those involving idiot and drunk
drivers who run off the road into a tree! Those deaths are irrelevant
to the routes YOU drive and to your safety.



Jean C wrote in message ...
Safety board wants airline passengers weighed

WASHINGTON (AP) --Air travel would be safer if airlines weighed their
passengers from time to time to make sure they know how much weight their
planes are carrying, the National Transportation Safety Board says.

Following its investigation into a commuter plane crash last year in North
Carolina, the NTSB said on Thursday that airlines should at least
periodically make passengers step on a scale.

The safety board also recommended the Federal Aviation Administration
require improvements to training, oversight and procedures for maintenance
personnel.

The crash of US Airways Express Flight 5481 at Charlotte-Douglas Airport
killed 21 people, the deadliest U.S. aviation accident in nearly 2 1/2
years.

The Beech 1900, operated by Air Midwest, was virtually uncontrollable
because of two fatal mistakes, the safety board concluded.

First, the airline's guidelines for estimating the weight of passengers and
baggage were inaccurate. The pilots, therefore, didn't realize the plane's
rear section was too heavy.

Second, mechanics had improperly rigged cables connected to the elevator,
the tail flap that controls the up-and-down direction of the aircraft's
nose. The errors meant the elevator's downward motion was restricted to
half its normal range, according to the NTSB.

Without a fully maneuverable elevator, the pilots couldn't force the nose
of the plane down to compensate for its heavy tail, investigators said.

As a result, the plane pitched sharply upward just seconds after takeoff
for Greer, South Carolina, then fell from the sky.

Soon afterward, the FAA ordered airlines to weigh some of their passengers
to determine the accuracy of current guidelines -- for example, adults in
winter were calculated to weigh 185 pounds on average.

The survey showed what many suspected: Passengers and their bags had gotten
heavier. The FAA issued temporary guidelines adding up to 10 pounds to its
estimate for passengers and 5 pounds to checked luggage.

Weight and balance issues
The NTSB said those guidelines don't go far enough. The board recommended
the FAA require airlines operating planes with 10 or more seats to weigh
passengers periodically to determine when they might be heavier -- for
example, in December when they wear heavy coats and carry presents.

The FAA is working on that. Since June, a committee has been examining the
average weights of passengers and baggage and how they vary according to
season or geography.

Debby McElroy, Regional Airline Association president, said her group is
working with the FAA on the weight and balance issues identified by the
NTSB.

"We agree that further study is necessary, to ensure that air carrier
weight and balance programs provide the highest level of safety," McElroy
said.

The committee is expected to make recommendations next month.

NTSB investigators also found flaws in the way mechanics were trained and
supervised, how their work was checked and how Air Midwest controlled the
quality of its maintenance. Those problems led to the improperly rigged
elevator cables on the Charlotte flight.

As part of a series of recommendations on maintenance, the NTSB said the
FAA should require that work on key flight control systems, including
elevator cables, be checked upon completion.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency already is working on the
issues raised by the investigation.

Two Democratic members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, James Oberstar of Wisconsin and Peter DeFazio of Oregon, asked
the Transportation Department's inspector general to report on whether
outsourced maintenance work affects airline safety.

Air Midwest contracted maintenance to Raytheon Aerospace (now known as
Vertex Aerospace), which hired mechanics from Structural Modification and
Repair Technicians Inc.



-



-



-



-



-



-


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you consider the content of this post to be particularly offensive, disgusting or plain illegal,
it is probably 'designer abuse', a message designed specifically to hurt the remailer's reputation/existence.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain
Some people hate this remailer so badly that, for example, they did not hesitate to celebrate the death of 148 French tourists in a plane crash.
Those people seceded from the human race, so don't hesitate to report them directly to the police.
2004/01/03 (contact ) Blue.Jay celebrates
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain
2004/01/19 Len Sassaman chooses that moment to bring his support to Blue.Jay
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

More about the subject will be available http://frogadmin.yi.org/HOS/

misterfact wrote:
WE HAVE JUST ELIMINATED THE STANDARD WIVE'S TALE OF PASSENGER/MILES
AS RELEVANT TO COMPARING THE RELATIVE SAFETY OF ANY TWO AIRLINES. IT
IS ALSO IRRELEVANT IN COMPARING ANY TWO MODES OF TRANSPORT. THE NUMBER
OF PASSENGERS THAT HAPPEN TO BE RIDING ON ANY VEHICLE, AIR, LAND OR
SEA, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INHERENT SAFETY DESIGN OF THAT
PARTICULAR MODE OF TRANSPORT.

But it has everything to do with your personal likelihood of being injured.
Remember that you are a person, not an airplane,.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
misterfact wrote:
WE HAVE JUST ELIMINATED THE STANDARD WIVE'S TALE OF PASSENGER/MILES
AS RELEVANT TO COMPARING THE RELATIVE SAFETY OF ANY TWO AIRLINES. IT
IS ALSO IRRELEVANT IN COMPARING ANY TWO MODES OF TRANSPORT. THE NUMBER
OF PASSENGERS THAT HAPPEN TO BE RIDING ON ANY VEHICLE, AIR, LAND OR
SEA, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INHERENT SAFETY DESIGN OF THAT
PARTICULAR MODE OF TRANSPORT.

But it has everything to do with your personal likelihood of being
injured.
Remember that you are a person, not an airplane,.

I think that's his point. Although basing accidents on passenger miles does
show the likelihood is greater that you would be involved in an auto
accident trying to drive from New York to Florida than by flying from NY to
FL.


--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

(misterfact) wrote in message . com...
AIRLINES' BIG LIE: Flying is SAFER than driving! (The airlines
deliver more safe passenger miles that autos do!)


It isn't passenger miles that is relevant when comparing car and
plane safety. It's the number of DEATHS which occur by the mode of
transportation divided by the (NUMBER OF VEHICLES) IN THAT MODE TIMES
THE (TIME) THOSE VEHICLES ARE IN OPERATION (the time those vehicles
are subject to a crash).

Putting it in caps doesn't make it right. Transportation is not
entertainment. it is not the number of minutes you get to enjoy it,
it's the distance you travel to get from point A to point B.

Is that a difficult concept for you?

Just to show it isn't passengers X miles:

Suppose you have two airplanes: one plane from AIRLINE A and one plane
from AIRLINE B. Both planes make one flight from New York to L.A.
(3300 miles). On AIRLINE A you have 100 passengers. On AIRLINE B you
have only ONE passenger. At the end of the flight, both planes crash.
AIRLINE A had 100 passenger deaths for the 3300 miles flown(330,000
passenger/miles flown safely an instant before the crash) AIRLINE B
had ONE passenger death for the 3300 miles(only 3300 passenger/miles
flown safely an instant before the crash). Would you then say that
AIRLINE A had a hundred-fold better safety record than AIRLINE B? Of
couse not!

Ah, no. The relative risk per passenger mile is the same - one death
every 3300 passenger miles flown.

WE HAVE JUST ELIMINATED THE STANDARD WIVE'S TALE OF PASSENGER/MILES
AS RELEVANT TO COMPARING THE RELATIVE SAFETY OF ANY TWO AIRLINES.

No, you may feel it is a wive's tail and may think you've proved
something - but you haven't. Sorry.

IT
IS ALSO IRRELEVANT IN COMPARING ANY TWO MODES OF TRANSPORT. THE NUMBER
OF PASSENGERS THAT HAPPEN TO BE RIDING ON ANY VEHICLE, AIR, LAND OR
SEA, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INHERENT SAFETY DESIGN OF THAT
PARTICULAR MODE OF TRANSPORT.

We aren't talking about the safety of the mode of transport - we are
talking about the human safety of traveling IN that mode of transport
FROM point A to point B. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter
how safe the transport is, just how safe I am in it and my chance of
making it to point B safely.

The safety of any mode of transport depends on the NUMBER OF VEHICLES
in that mode TIMES THE NUMBER OF HOURS THOSE VEHICLES ARE SUBJECT TO
CRASH (hours of operation)

The safety of individual travel depends on the MILES traveled. Time
is irrelevant since the objective is to get from point A to point B,
not to spend 10 hours in a car or on a plane.

Risk per mile traveled or risk per hour traveled - Which one helps a
person decide if they should fly or drive - if they are interested in
surviving the 200 mile trip to Vegas?

HERE ARE THE FIGURES FOR COMPARING RELATIVE SAFETY OF CARS VS
COMMERCIAL JETS;

FOR ONE YEAR:

(for a mode of transportation)It's number of deaths per year DIVIDED
BY the number of vehicles in that mode TIMES the avdg number of hours
per year each vehicle is in service:
AUTO;
54,000 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years)DIVIDED BY
80,000,000 cars in service TIMES (3 hrs per day avdg per car TIMES
365=1095)OR 80 MILLION times 1095= OVER 80 BILLION car hours.

54,000 Divided by 80 BILLION= (A PEWNEY, ONLY) 1 DEATH PER 1,481,000
CAR Hours

Average speed is 30 miles per hour - 1 death per 44 million miles
traveled.

AIRLINES:

200 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years) DIVIDED BY 3000
commercial jets in service TIMES (8 hrs avdg flight time per day TIMES
365= 2920) or 3000 times 8 times 365= 8,760,000 jet hours

200 DEATHS divided by 8,760,000= (A WHOPPING) ONE DEATH for only
43,800 airplane hours!

Average speed is 500 miles per hour - 1 death for every 21.9 million
miles traveled.

Though your example still puts car safety ahead of airline safety,
it's a function of the numeric assumptions. The ratio is 2 to one
using the miles as a denominator, not 34 to one as in your example.

If you want to spin the statistic even more, use the risk per trip
example.

The typical airline trip is 1000 miles, the typical car trip is 10
miles.

One death per 4.4 million trips in the car, one death per 22 thousand
trips on a plane. Makes cars 200 times as safe.

Yes, you too can lie with statistics. At the end of the day, all that
matters to a traveler is whether or not they arrived at their
destination safely, and that is only measured in miles.

So, when you have a choice between driving from LA to New York or
flying, which one is safer? The only relevant metric is miles.

Figure it out and you'll see the car is much safer!
MISTERFACT @ YAHOO.COM

Hardly.

js

for "small" airliners (like the Beech 1900) it actually makes sense

"misterfact" wrote in message
om...
AIRLINES' BIG LIE: Flying is SAFER than driving! (The airlines
deliver more safe passenger miles that autos do!)


It isn't passenger miles that is relevant when comparing car and
plane safety. It's the number of DEATHS which occur by the mode of
transportation divided by the (NUMBER OF VEHICLES) IN THAT MODE TIMES
THE (TIME) THOSE VEHICLES ARE IN OPERATION (the time those vehicles
are subject to a crash).

Just to show it isn't passengers X miles:

Suppose you have two airplanes: one plane from AIRLINE A and one plane
from AIRLINE B. Both planes make one flight from New York to L.A.
(3300 miles). On AIRLINE A you have 100 passengers. On AIRLINE B you
have only ONE passenger. At the end of the flight, both planes crash.
AIRLINE A had 100 passenger deaths for the 3300 miles flown(330,000
passenger/miles flown safely an instant before the crash) AIRLINE B
had ONE passenger death for the 3300 miles(only 3300 passenger/miles
flown safely an instant before the crash). Would you then say that
AIRLINE A had a hundred-fold better safety record than AIRLINE B? Of
couse not!

WE HAVE JUST ELIMINATED THE STANDARD WIVE'S TALE OF PASSENGER/MILES
AS RELEVANT TO COMPARING THE RELATIVE SAFETY OF ANY TWO AIRLINES. IT
IS ALSO IRRELEVANT IN COMPARING ANY TWO MODES OF TRANSPORT. THE NUMBER
OF PASSENGERS THAT HAPPEN TO BE RIDING ON ANY VEHICLE, AIR, LAND OR
SEA, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INHERENT SAFETY DESIGN OF THAT
PARTICULAR MODE OF TRANSPORT.

The safety of any mode of transport depends on the NUMBER OF VEHICLES
in that mode TIMES THE NUMBER OF HOURS THOSE VEHICLES ARE SUBJECT TO
CRASH (hours of operation)

HERE ARE THE FIGURES FOR COMPARING RELATIVE SAFETY OF CARS VS
COMMERCIAL JETS;

FOR ONE YEAR:

(for a mode of transportation)It's number of deaths per year DIVIDED
BY the number of vehicles in that mode TIMES the avdg number of hours
per year each vehicle is in service:
AUTO;
54,000 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years)DIVIDED BY
80,000,000 cars in service TIMES (3 hrs per day avdg per car TIMES
365=1095)OR 80 MILLION times 1095= OVER 80 BILLION car hours.

54,000 Divided by 80 BILLION= (A PEWNEY, ONLY) 1 DEATH PER 1,481,000
CAR Hours

AIRLINES:

200 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years) DIVIDED BY 3000
commercial jets in service TIMES (8 hrs avdg flight time per day TIMES
365= 2920) or 3000 times 8 times 365= 8,760,000 jet hours

200 DEATHS divided by 8,760,000= (A WHOPPING) ONE DEATH for only
43,800 airplane hours!

Figure it out and you'll see the car is much safer!
MISTERFACT @ YAHOO.COM

p.s. to further debunk MILES and the number of PASSENGERS who happen
to be in a vehicle(as factors in comparing relative safety),
imagine a fleet of 10,000 space ships, each traveling the speed of
light, each with ONE pilot. This represents INFINITE passenger/miles.
As soon as one of these space ships crashes- it can be said that space
ships are INFINITELY more dangerous that any other mode of transport-
yet in reality, only ONE of the fleet of 10,000 had a crash, only ONE
passenger died- which is better than can be said of 10,000 cars or
other modes of transport.
Finally- to compare the number of deaths in 80 million US cars with
a limited number of jumbo jets- is an unfair comparison. Take all the
people out of those cars for a year and put them in jumbo jets- the
skies would be so crowded with planes, you probably would not be able
to see the sun! Air safety would be a joke. If you are going to
compare auto death statistics with the airlines- use EQUAL comparisons
of EQUAL numbers of passengers: like the number of auto deaths in
Georgia compared to US airlines. If you want to compare the relative
safety of flying from New York to L.A.- compare that to the number of
auto deaths on Interstate 80! That is the route you would take from
New York to L.A. Don't include all the irrelevant deaths in the US
occuring on rural roads including those involving idiot and drunk
drivers who run off the road into a tree! Those deaths are irrelevant
to the routes YOU drive and to your safety.



Jean C wrote in message
...
Safety board wants airline passengers weighed

WASHINGTON (AP) --Air travel would be safer if airlines weighed their
passengers from time to time to make sure they know how much weight
their
planes are carrying, the National Transportation Safety Board says.

Following its investigation into a commuter plane crash last year in
North
Carolina, the NTSB said on Thursday that airlines should at least
periodically make passengers step on a scale.

The safety board also recommended the Federal Aviation Administration
require improvements to training, oversight and procedures for
maintenance
personnel.

The crash of US Airways Express Flight 5481 at Charlotte-Douglas Airport
killed 21 people, the deadliest U.S. aviation accident in nearly 2 1/2
years.

The Beech 1900, operated by Air Midwest, was virtually uncontrollable
because of two fatal mistakes, the safety board concluded.

First, the airline's guidelines for estimating the weight of passengers
and
baggage were inaccurate. The pilots, therefore, didn't realize the
plane's
rear section was too heavy.

Second, mechanics had improperly rigged cables connected to the
elevator,
the tail flap that controls the up-and-down direction of the aircraft's
nose. The errors meant the elevator's downward motion was restricted to
half its normal range, according to the NTSB.

Without a fully maneuverable elevator, the pilots couldn't force the
nose
of the plane down to compensate for its heavy tail, investigators said.

As a result, the plane pitched sharply upward just seconds after takeoff
for Greer, South Carolina, then fell from the sky.

Soon afterward, the FAA ordered airlines to weigh some of their
passengers
to determine the accuracy of current guidelines -- for example, adults
in
winter were calculated to weigh 185 pounds on average.

The survey showed what many suspected: Passengers and their bags had
gotten
heavier. The FAA issued temporary guidelines adding up to 10 pounds to
its
estimate for passengers and 5 pounds to checked luggage.

Weight and balance issues
The NTSB said those guidelines don't go far enough. The board
recommended
the FAA require airlines operating planes with 10 or more seats to weigh
passengers periodically to determine when they might be heavier -- for
example, in December when they wear heavy coats and carry presents.

The FAA is working on that. Since June, a committee has been examining
the
average weights of passengers and baggage and how they vary according to
season or geography.

Debby McElroy, Regional Airline Association president, said her group is
working with the FAA on the weight and balance issues identified by the
NTSB.

"We agree that further study is necessary, to ensure that air carrier
weight and balance programs provide the highest level of safety,"
McElroy
said.

The committee is expected to make recommendations next month.

NTSB investigators also found flaws in the way mechanics were trained
and
supervised, how their work was checked and how Air Midwest controlled
the
quality of its maintenance. Those problems led to the improperly rigged
elevator cables on the Charlotte flight.

As part of a series of recommendations on maintenance, the NTSB said the
FAA should require that work on key flight control systems, including
elevator cables, be checked upon completion.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency already is working on the
issues raised by the investigation.

Two Democratic members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, James Oberstar of Wisconsin and Peter DeFazio of Oregon,
asked
the Transportation Department's inspector general to report on whether
outsourced maintenance work affects airline safety.

Air Midwest contracted maintenance to Raytheon Aerospace (now known as
Vertex Aerospace), which hired mechanics from Structural Modification
and
Repair Technicians Inc.



-



-



-



-



-



-


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you consider the content of this post to be particularly offensive,
disgusting or plain illegal,
it is probably 'designer abuse', a message designed specifically to hurt
the remailer's reputation/existence.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...anonymous&o e
=UTF-8&output=gplain
Some people hate this remailer so badly that, for example, they did not
hesitate to celebrate the death of 148 French tourists in a plane crash.
Those people seceded from the human race, so don't hesitate to report
them directly to the police.
2004/01/03 (contact ) Blue.Jay celebrates

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...eb3019d6fd3 f
aa2125547c%401073158846.cotse.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
2004/01/19 Len Sassaman chooses that moment to
bring his support to Blue.Jay

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm....31463%40th e
tis.deor.org&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

More about the subject will be available http://frogadmin.yi.org/HOS/

Regardless of the safety issues from a market standpoint I personally
think it's a good thing to weigh passengers & luggage. I mailed a
package via airmail a few weeks and USPS charged me postage based on
weight and dimension class. What's the difference between mailing a
package via air and personal flying? Not a whole lot in terms of space
and fuel consumption factors. We choose to live in a free market
economy and free market economics should determine operating
protocols. Therefore all the airlines have to do is assign ticket
prices based on weight/height ratios. Under this system a 150 lb 5foot
2 inch individual would pay … lets say $150.00 while a 300lb 5foot 2
inch whale would have to pay twice as much i.e. $300.00. We can always
make exemptions for pregnancy, genuine medical conditions, etc.
Obviously "chronic obesity" would not qualify as a genuine medical
condition since it isn't.

In the long run, normal people would be handed lower airfares while
the slobs would pay their fare share (like my pun?). Of course it goes
without saying that a person who pays for two seats should also
receive two meals and be allowed to visit the bathroom twice as often.

If we are to accept the fat lobby's opinion a 300lb leviathan who
spreads their flab over two whole seats would be entitled to pay as
much as a normal person who takes up a single seat. I don't think so!
Why not ask USPS if they are willing to ship all packages via air for
a flat rate regardless of weight and dimension and see what they say!
Economics are economics; If a fat person has no problem spending spend
2 or 3 times as much on food they should be equally willing, and
should more importantly should expect, to spend a comparable amount on
air travel. Take some responsibility for the consequences of your
actions.

"Jules Kemper" wrote in message
om...
Regardless of the safety issues from a market standpoint I personally
think it's a good thing to weigh passengers & luggage. I mailed a
package via airmail a few weeks and USPS charged me postage based on
weight and dimension class. What's the difference between mailing a
package via air and personal flying? Not a whole lot in terms of space
and fuel consumption factors. We choose to live in a free market
economy and free market economics should determine operating
protocols. Therefore all the airlines have to do is assign ticket
prices based on weight/height ratios. Under this system a 150 lb 5foot
2 inch individual would pay . lets say $150.00 while a 300lb 5foot 2
inch whale would have to pay twice as much i.e. $300.00. We can always
make exemptions for pregnancy, genuine medical conditions, etc.
Obviously "chronic obesity" would not qualify as a genuine medical
condition since it isn't.

In the long run, normal people would be handed lower airfares while
the slobs would pay their fare share (like my pun?). Of course it goes
without saying that a person who pays for two seats should also
receive two meals and be allowed to visit the bathroom twice as often.

If we are to accept the fat lobby's opinion a 300lb leviathan who
spreads their flab over two whole seats would be entitled to pay as
much as a normal person who takes up a single seat. I don't think so!
Why not ask USPS if they are willing to ship all packages via air for
a flat rate regardless of weight and dimension and see what they say!
Economics are economics; If a fat person has no problem spending spend
2 or 3 times as much on food they should be equally willing, and
should more importantly should expect, to spend a comparable amount on
air travel. Take some responsibility for the consequences of your
actions.
I can not believe you actually posted that. I have never been so insulted
in my entire life! As one of those Leviathan I dont see why I should have
to pay for 2 seats unless I take up 2 seats literally. I would normally
travel with my 2 year old daughter so if anyone has a problem sitting next
to my big butt they can sit next to her little tiny bottom. I am sorry that
I gained weight after being molested for 2 years and that my lack of self
esteem and my inability to loose the weight so I kick skinny jerks butts for
making rude and insensitive comments is offending you but maybe you should
think what if this was my child I was posting about before you say anything.
Tori
Ps I am planning on having gastric bypass surgery after I have child #2 in
October. And I dont eat more then anyone else I know infect my husband eats
more then I do and he looses weight.