Narrative:

On oct/xa/01 I took off with an airplane 5000 pounds overweight. I departed phx in a lear 60 XXXX for a trip to hpn. The airplane's weight was 23500 pounds, the maximum gross takeoff weight. The airplane had a deferred antiskid system that limits the takeoff weight to 18500 pounds. At the time, I forgot about the limitation. The original plan was to fly xyyx non stop from vny to hpn but we had a fueling problem and had to defer the fuselage fuel tank, severely limiting our range. The back-up plan was to fly xyyx with passenger to phx, switch airplanes to XXXX and then continue on to new york. The captain of XXXX was at the airport preflting the airplane when I arrived. He briefed me on the antiskid deferral and told me he 'ran the numbers' for the limitation: 10900 ft of runway was needed for takeoff. No problem, we had a 12000 ft runway. I looked up the antiskid in the MEL and the note stated '...may be deferred provided that the airplane is operated within accordance with afm limitations.' but it did not state the limitations. It took us 30 mins to unload and load the passenger, luggage, catering, and fuel the airplane. At the end of the runway, I was concerned with landing weight and we took a short delay while we ensured that white plains was an adequate runway with inoperative antiskid. We checked the afm for landing weight and distance. We had the numbers for landing and trusted the numbers for takeoff. All the while, the first officer, the previous captain, and I forgot about the 18500 pounds limitation. The afm actually had takeoff distance numbers for antiskid inoperative with no note about the weight limitation in the performance section. The 18500 pound weight limit is in the limitations section of the afm but not in the MEL or performance section of the afm. Contributing factors included: being rushed by the company to complete the mission, equipment change with passenger waiting, not checking the limitations section of the afm, afm performance charts actually having numbers for an overweight airplane, MEL not explicitly stating the limitation, and last min notification of aircraft status. Fortunately, the flight was made uneventfully and resulted in a safe takeoff and landing, then a position leg to have the antiskid repaired.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN LJ60 CREW DEPARTING PHX MADE AN OVERWT TKOF.

Narrative: ON OCT/XA/01 I TOOK OFF WITH AN AIRPLANE 5000 LBS OVERWT. I DEPARTED PHX IN A LEAR 60 XXXX FOR A TRIP TO HPN. THE AIRPLANE'S WT WAS 23500 LBS, THE MAX GROSS TKOF WT. THE AIRPLANE HAD A DEFERRED ANTISKID SYS THAT LIMITS THE TKOF WT TO 18500 LBS. AT THE TIME, I FORGOT ABOUT THE LIMITATION. THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO FLY XYYX NON STOP FROM VNY TO HPN BUT WE HAD A FUELING PROB AND HAD TO DEFER THE FUSELAGE FUEL TANK, SEVERELY LIMITING OUR RANGE. THE BACK-UP PLAN WAS TO FLY XYYX WITH PAX TO PHX, SWITCH AIRPLANES TO XXXX AND THEN CONTINUE ON TO NEW YORK. THE CAPT OF XXXX WAS AT THE ARPT PREFLTING THE AIRPLANE WHEN I ARRIVED. HE BRIEFED ME ON THE ANTISKID DEFERRAL AND TOLD ME HE 'RAN THE NUMBERS' FOR THE LIMITATION: 10900 FT OF RWY WAS NEEDED FOR TKOF. NO PROB, WE HAD A 12000 FT RWY. I LOOKED UP THE ANTISKID IN THE MEL AND THE NOTE STATED '...MAY BE DEFERRED PROVIDED THAT THE AIRPLANE IS OPERATED WITHIN ACCORDANCE WITH AFM LIMITATIONS.' BUT IT DID NOT STATE THE LIMITATIONS. IT TOOK US 30 MINS TO UNLOAD AND LOAD THE PAX, LUGGAGE, CATERING, AND FUEL THE AIRPLANE. AT THE END OF THE RWY, I WAS CONCERNED WITH LNDG WT AND WE TOOK A SHORT DELAY WHILE WE ENSURED THAT WHITE PLAINS WAS AN ADEQUATE RWY WITH INOP ANTISKID. WE CHKED THE AFM FOR LNDG WT AND DISTANCE. WE HAD THE NUMBERS FOR LNDG AND TRUSTED THE NUMBERS FOR TKOF. ALL THE WHILE, THE FO, THE PREVIOUS CAPT, AND I FORGOT ABOUT THE 18500 LBS LIMITATION. THE AFM ACTUALLY HAD TKOF DISTANCE NUMBERS FOR ANTISKID INOP WITH NO NOTE ABOUT THE WT LIMITATION IN THE PERFORMANCE SECTION. THE 18500 LB WT LIMIT IS IN THE LIMITATIONS SECTION OF THE AFM BUT NOT IN THE MEL OR PERFORMANCE SECTION OF THE AFM. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS INCLUDED: BEING RUSHED BY THE COMPANY TO COMPLETE THE MISSION, EQUIP CHANGE WITH PAX WAITING, NOT CHKING THE LIMITATIONS SECTION OF THE AFM, AFM PERFORMANCE CHARTS ACTUALLY HAVING NUMBERS FOR AN OVERWT AIRPLANE, MEL NOT EXPLICITLY STATING THE LIMITATION, AND LAST MIN NOTIFICATION OF ACFT STATUS. FORTUNATELY, THE FLT WAS MADE UNEVENTFULLY AND RESULTED IN A SAFE TKOF AND LNDG, THEN A POS LEG TO HAVE THE ANTISKID REPAIRED.

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.