Narrative:

Flight from dfw to shv. All weight and balance parameters given to the crew within limits. Rotation, takeoff, cruise and descent normal. Landing at shv on runway 5 with first officer flying. Smooth touchdown on the mains at vref of 120 KTS. However, nose stays up throughout deceleration despite first officer's efforts to push yoke forward. I take control of aircraft and move power levers out of beta and apply slight forward thrust which in conjunction with forward yoke pressure brings nosewheel down onto runway. Uneventful taxi to gate. Rampers report unusually heavy bags and several heavy pineapple boxes. Conclusion: cargo weights given to us at dfw were obviously not what was loaded into the cargo compartments. Aircraft must have actually been aft of its center of gravity limits. In 5 yrs of flying this aircraft, have never encountered such a characteristic on landing. After 1 1/2 hours after passenger deplane, maintenance personnel come up to cockpit and ask about the condition of the tail and whether we scraped it anywhere. That's when we get out of the airplane and to my amazement and shock notice scrape marks on the aft tail strakes and lower portion of the tailcone albeit very subtle but nonetheless there. First officer reports not having noticed anything unusual during post and preflight walkarounds at shv and I did not notice anything unusual while handling the tailstand. Landing at dfw was very smooth and normal so anything there is out of the question. As far as the landing in shv, we had not even given the remotest thought about the possibility of any part of the aircraft having made contact with the runway because we never had any physical feedback, vibration or heard any noises. Nor did the tower, flight attendant or any passenger report anything of that nature. Therefore we were not in a mindset to look for any scrape marks on the aircraft. But realistically, I'm sure that's where it happened and we did not feel it. Maintenance person later stated that there is no way the crew could have seen it on a walkaround such as is accomplished on a turn. However, there may have been an opportunity to discover more had the rampers perhaps communicated better with myself by having been more specific about the problem they were having and how much they knew and bringing matters that come to their attention first and foremost and in a timely manner to the attention of the PIC rather than keeping the crew out of the loop until departure time and contacting maintenance without informing the PIC. This is where I think we need to apply CRM beyond the cockpit and involve all departments. However, the main safety issue with this occurrence is the need to revise the current procedures at dfw for weighing and loading cargo and communicating the numbers to the crew. Obviously there was a gross discrepancy between weights given to us and actual weights on the aircraft. Perhaps rather than using the standard 23 1/2 pound bag, all bags should be actually weighed to prevent further occurrences such as this. Company reports made, meetings held and performances evaluated. Effective immediately, some new procedures have been implemented concerning aircraft loading and more recommendations will follow. Hope this is a useful report.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN SF340B HAD DIFFICULTY LOWERING THE NOSEWHEEL TO THE RWY AFTER LNDG DUE TO THE ACFT AFT CTR OF GRAVITY LIMITS HAD BEEN EXCEEDED BY EXCESSIVE BAGGAGE WT. THE TAILCONE HAD ALSO BEEN STRUCK DURING ONE OF THE LNDGS AS EVIDENCE OF SMALL SCRAPE MARKS ON THE FUSELAGE TAIL CONE.

Narrative: FLT FROM DFW TO SHV. ALL WT AND BAL PARAMETERS GIVEN TO THE CREW WITHIN LIMITS. ROTATION, TKOF, CRUISE AND DSCNT NORMAL. LNDG AT SHV ON RWY 5 WITH FO FLYING. SMOOTH TOUCHDOWN ON THE MAINS AT VREF OF 120 KTS. HOWEVER, NOSE STAYS UP THROUGHOUT DECELERATION DESPITE FO'S EFFORTS TO PUSH YOKE FORWARD. I TAKE CTL OF ACFT AND MOVE PWR LEVERS OUT OF BETA AND APPLY SLIGHT FORWARD THRUST WHICH IN CONJUNCTION WITH FORWARD YOKE PRESSURE BRINGS NOSEWHEEL DOWN ONTO RWY. UNEVENTFUL TAXI TO GATE. RAMPERS RPT UNUSUALLY HVY BAGS AND SEVERAL HVY PINEAPPLE BOXES. CONCLUSION: CARGO WTS GIVEN TO US AT DFW WERE OBVIOUSLY NOT WHAT WAS LOADED INTO THE CARGO COMPARTMENTS. ACFT MUST HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN AFT OF ITS CTR OF GRAVITY LIMITS. IN 5 YRS OF FLYING THIS ACFT, HAVE NEVER ENCOUNTERED SUCH A CHARACTERISTIC ON LNDG. AFTER 1 1/2 HRS AFTER PAX DEPLANE, MAINT PERSONNEL COME UP TO COCKPIT AND ASK ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE TAIL AND WHETHER WE SCRAPED IT ANYWHERE. THAT'S WHEN WE GET OUT OF THE AIRPLANE AND TO MY AMAZEMENT AND SHOCK NOTICE SCRAPE MARKS ON THE AFT TAIL STRAKES AND LOWER PORTION OF THE TAILCONE ALBEIT VERY SUBTLE BUT NONETHELESS THERE. FO RPTS NOT HAVING NOTICED ANYTHING UNUSUAL DURING POST AND PREFLT WALKAROUNDS AT SHV AND I DID NOT NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL WHILE HANDLING THE TAILSTAND. LNDG AT DFW WAS VERY SMOOTH AND NORMAL SO ANYTHING THERE IS OUT OF THE QUESTION. AS FAR AS THE LNDG IN SHV, WE HAD NOT EVEN GIVEN THE REMOTEST THOUGHT ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY PART OF THE ACFT HAVING MADE CONTACT WITH THE RWY BECAUSE WE NEVER HAD ANY PHYSICAL FEEDBACK, VIBRATION OR HEARD ANY NOISES. NOR DID THE TWR, FLT ATTENDANT OR ANY PAX RPT ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. THEREFORE WE WERE NOT IN A MINDSET TO LOOK FOR ANY SCRAPE MARKS ON THE ACFT. BUT REALISTICALLY, I'M SURE THAT'S WHERE IT HAPPENED AND WE DID NOT FEEL IT. MAINT PERSON LATER STATED THAT THERE IS NO WAY THE CREW COULD HAVE SEEN IT ON A WALKAROUND SUCH AS IS ACCOMPLISHED ON A TURN. HOWEVER, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCOVER MORE HAD THE RAMPERS PERHAPS COMMUNICATED BETTER WITH MYSELF BY HAVING BEEN MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE PROB THEY WERE HAVING AND HOW MUCH THEY KNEW AND BRINGING MATTERS THAT COME TO THEIR ATTN FIRST AND FOREMOST AND IN A TIMELY MANNER TO THE ATTN OF THE PIC RATHER THAN KEEPING THE CREW OUT OF THE LOOP UNTIL DEP TIME AND CONTACTING MAINT WITHOUT INFORMING THE PIC. THIS IS WHERE I THINK WE NEED TO APPLY CRM BEYOND THE COCKPIT AND INVOLVE ALL DEPTS. HOWEVER, THE MAIN SAFETY ISSUE WITH THIS OCCURRENCE IS THE NEED TO REVISE THE CURRENT PROCS AT DFW FOR WEIGHING AND LOADING CARGO AND COMMUNICATING THE NUMBERS TO THE CREW. OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS A GROSS DISCREPANCY BTWN WTS GIVEN TO US AND ACTUAL WTS ON THE ACFT. PERHAPS RATHER THAN USING THE STANDARD 23 1/2 LB BAG, ALL BAGS SHOULD BE ACTUALLY WEIGHED TO PREVENT FURTHER OCCURRENCES SUCH AS THIS. COMPANY RPTS MADE, MEETINGS HELD AND PERFORMANCES EVALUATED. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, SOME NEW PROCS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED CONCERNING ACFT LOADING AND MORE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL FOLLOW. HOPE THIS IS A USEFUL RPT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.