Narrative:

On a routine flight from lax to san, we, the flight crew, were given our weights for the cargo compartment by the ground crew. With the weights provided, we calculated our weight and balance for the saab 340 and determined the center of gravity and aircraft weights to be within limitations. The center of gravity was near the aft center of gravity limit and inside the envelope, so during takeoff it lifted off with minimal initial back pressure on the yoke. En route and with autoplt on, all was normal. Descent and approach occurred with normal sensations from the autoplt and manual control. It wasn't until reducing power during the landing flare that the aircraft started an abnormal attitude. Approximately 10 ft above the runway 27 approach touchdown zone the aircraft was in ground effect and the nose continued to rise without using elevator back pressure. The airspeed began to decrease below vref and the aircraft would not sink any further as the aft center of gravity condition prevailed. The PNF (captain) called out airspeed vref -10 and began to sound uneasy why the aircraft was still in the air (approximately 5-10 ft AGL). I had to increase power, use forward elevator pressure and nose down trim, to land the aircraft. A safe landing occurred with abnormal inputs to control the aircraft. After landing, the captain inquired what was going on with the aircraft. My reply was to inform him that something strange was going on with the aircraft handling. He advised the station that all baggage in the cargo holds were to be weighed. The results of weighing the baggage proved to be the factor that caused the abnormal flare during landing. The weights were very excessive, over 1000 pounds in error and completely contradictory to the information provided to us at preflight and during our loading calculations. This error by the ground crew resulted in an instability and overweight situation because the system does not actually weigh each bag/suitcase, but a count is taken of the number of bags and multiplied by a weight factor. This proved to be dangerous since many of the bags were a lot heavier than average. Also, their count was inaccurate which also caused erroneous information to be utilized. The company is taking corrective action to rectify the loading procedures for our operation. No aircraft damage was observed and landing occurred smoothly.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FO FLYING SAAB 340 (SF34L) EXPERIENCED DIFFICULTY DURING LNDG FLARE. THE NOSE PITCHED UP UNCOMMANDED CAUSING PWR TO BE ADDED AND ELEVATOR PITCH DOWN PRESSURE TO MAKE NORMAL LNDG. THE CAUSE WAS FOUND TO BE HIGHER THAN NORMAL BAGGAGE WT IN THE AFT BAGGAGE COMPARTMENT WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED ON THE DEP WT AND BAL. THE AFT CTR OF GRAVITY LIMITS WERE EXCEEDED.

Narrative: ON A ROUTINE FLT FROM LAX TO SAN, WE, THE FLC, WERE GIVEN OUR WTS FOR THE CARGO COMPARTMENT BY THE GND CREW. WITH THE WTS PROVIDED, WE CALCULATED OUR WT AND BAL FOR THE SAAB 340 AND DETERMINED THE CTR OF GRAVITY AND ACFT WTS TO BE WITHIN LIMITATIONS. THE CTR OF GRAVITY WAS NEAR THE AFT CTR OF GRAVITY LIMIT AND INSIDE THE ENVELOPE, SO DURING TKOF IT LIFTED OFF WITH MINIMAL INITIAL BACK PRESSURE ON THE YOKE. ENRTE AND WITH AUTOPLT ON, ALL WAS NORMAL. DSCNT AND APCH OCCURRED WITH NORMAL SENSATIONS FROM THE AUTOPLT AND MANUAL CTL. IT WASN'T UNTIL REDUCING PWR DURING THE LNDG FLARE THAT THE ACFT STARTED AN ABNORMAL ATTITUDE. APPROX 10 FT ABOVE THE RWY 27 APCH TOUCHDOWN ZONE THE ACFT WAS IN GND EFFECT AND THE NOSE CONTINUED TO RISE WITHOUT USING ELEVATOR BACK PRESSURE. THE AIRSPD BEGAN TO DECREASE BELOW VREF AND THE ACFT WOULD NOT SINK ANY FURTHER AS THE AFT CTR OF GRAVITY CONDITION PREVAILED. THE PNF (CAPT) CALLED OUT AIRSPD VREF -10 AND BEGAN TO SOUND UNEASY WHY THE ACFT WAS STILL IN THE AIR (APPROX 5-10 FT AGL). I HAD TO INCREASE PWR, USE FORWARD ELEVATOR PRESSURE AND NOSE DOWN TRIM, TO LAND THE ACFT. A SAFE LNDG OCCURRED WITH ABNORMAL INPUTS TO CTL THE ACFT. AFTER LNDG, THE CAPT INQUIRED WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THE ACFT. MY REPLY WAS TO INFORM HIM THAT SOMETHING STRANGE WAS GOING ON WITH THE ACFT HANDLING. HE ADVISED THE STATION THAT ALL BAGGAGE IN THE CARGO HOLDS WERE TO BE WEIGHED. THE RESULTS OF WEIGHING THE BAGGAGE PROVED TO BE THE FACTOR THAT CAUSED THE ABNORMAL FLARE DURING LNDG. THE WTS WERE VERY EXCESSIVE, OVER 1000 LBS IN ERROR AND COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY TO THE INFO PROVIDED TO US AT PREFLT AND DURING OUR LOADING CALCULATIONS. THIS ERROR BY THE GND CREW RESULTED IN AN INSTABILITY AND OVERWT SIT BECAUSE THE SYS DOES NOT ACTUALLY WEIGH EACH BAG/SUITCASE, BUT A COUNT IS TAKEN OF THE NUMBER OF BAGS AND MULTIPLIED BY A WT FACTOR. THIS PROVED TO BE DANGEROUS SINCE MANY OF THE BAGS WERE A LOT HEAVIER THAN AVERAGE. ALSO, THEIR COUNT WAS INACCURATE WHICH ALSO CAUSED ERRONEOUS INFO TO BE UTILIZED. THE COMPANY IS TAKING CORRECTIVE ACTION TO RECTIFY THE LOADING PROCS FOR OUR OP. NO ACFT DAMAGE WAS OBSERVED AND LNDG OCCURRED SMOOTHLY.

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.