guesswork

Post #101,773 by cforde 5/13/03 11:55:02 PM Reply	guesswork what's scary is the amount of guesswork that goes into loading a plane. The trouble with averages is that most loads aren't average. So you build in a healthy safety margin. Ok, that saves lives, costs money and is susceptible to outliners. (Like, possibly, this case.) How hard/expensive would it be to have three large pads on the runway apron. As the plan rolls over the pads the weight carried by each set of wheels is relayed to the pilot and recorded. A quick calculation based on plane type would allow an accurate determination of the cg. An informed go/no go decision can then be made. The information can also be used to improve loading of future cargos. I've driven through highway weigh scales where the truck only has to slow down below a certain speed and the weight shows up on a big sign. I'm imagining something similar here. Thoughts? Have fun, Carl Forde
Post #101,776 by kmself 5/14/03 12:53:53 AM Reply	GIYF 30 seconds with Google turns up [link\|http://www.cas.honeywell.com/ats/products/weightbal.cfm\|Weight and Balance System] from Honeywell. Seems as if your system's already been developed, if not deployed, with landing gear sensors, as I suspected (search was [link\|http://www.google.com/search?q=commercial+aircraft+weight+balance+%22landing+gear%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N\|commercial aircraft weight balance "landing gear"]). \r\n\r\n \r\nThe Honeywell Weight and Balance System (WBS) measures the aircraft gross weight and center of gravity (CG) using sensors mounted on aircraft landing gear. The gross weight is the sum of the weights on the wheels. The CG is calculated from the relative weights on the nose and main gears. A typical system consists of landing-gear-mounted deflection sensors, a calibration module containing all gear parameter information, a computer unit, a pitch attitude sensor, a flight deck display interface and a remote dedicated display unit for cargo loading. The sensors can be installed on current commercial transports without structural modifications. \r\n \r\n\r\n Google is your friend. --\r\n Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n [link\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n [link\|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/\|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n \r\n Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
Post #101,794 by drewk 5/14/03 7:46:49 AM Reply	WDYHASM Seems as if your system's already been developed, if not deployed. Are you suggesting that we should take some of the money we've been pouring in to airport security for the past 20 years and divert it to fixing the problems that actually cause planes to crash?[1] What kind of terrorist sympathizer are you? [1] The money spent on installing passenger screening devices several years ago[2] would have more than paid for upgraded radar[3] at every airport in America. [2] In response to a crash that was caused by an employee[4] placing a bomb. [3] The kind that can detect wind shear.[5] [4] Yes, that means the passenger screening devices could not have prevented the event they were supposedly responding to. [5] Yes, that's what actually causes planes[6] to crash every year. [6] Note the plural. [7] I didn't mean to do this when I started, honest. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #101,905 by cforde 5/14/03 5:56:29 PM Reply	nifty Have fun, Carl Forde

Welcome to IWETHEY!