Narrative:

Cargo load discrepancy. We were delayed from pushing at the gate because of a bag loading issue. We had 16 passenger onboard with a capacity of 50 passenger. After taxiing out and waiting for final load numbers, there was a long delay (25 mins). We had to commercial radio request final numbers from company load control 3 times. We radioed local operations 4 times requesting final load numbers and general status. Local operations sends (computer transmission) final passenger and cargo and bag count to load control who computes weight and balance calculations and runway performance data which is commercial radioed to the flight crew data link. We eventually received our final load numbers and performance information (runway specific). During a postflt walkaround, we discovered that we had 35 military duffle/gear bags which weighed approximately 75 pounds per bag (2625 pounds total). These bags were not included in final load numbers, weight and balance, performance data. Numbers we received were 7 bags for a total of 175 pounds, which seemed appropriate for number of passenger -- 16 total. In summary, company supervisors and mgrs were contacted immediately. Appropriate company reports were completed and submitted. Flight was uneventful, no performance problems or flight control problems. Factors: management budget cuts have hurt morale of ramp personnel. Example. On day of our problem, there were 7 'sick' calls, from ramp employees. The continuum of downturns in the aviation industry and people's lives (layoffs, furloughs, pay-cuts, etc) may affect people's performance. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter advised that the company is taking responsible action to prevent a recurrence of the incident. Both he and the captain have been included in meetings and decision making by the company. Reporter re-stressed, however, his concern about the state of morale within the industry in general and his company in particular. He fears that, notwithstanding the good intentions of the employees, the omnipresent fear of job loss, loss of benefits, pay reductions and general insecurity creates a drain on their capacity to give 100% attention to the details of their jobs. Reporter feels that this reality, more so than procedural problems, lies at the bottom of this anomaly.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF MDT ENCOUNTERED LENGTHY DELAYS AWAITING LOAD PLANNING NUMBERS FOR DEP. UPON ARR AT DEST DISCOVERED APPROX 2600 LBS OF MIL BAGGAGE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE 175 LBS DOCUMENTED BY LOAD PLANNING FOR THE FLT.

Narrative: CARGO LOAD DISCREPANCY. WE WERE DELAYED FROM PUSHING AT THE GATE BECAUSE OF A BAG LOADING ISSUE. WE HAD 16 PAX ONBOARD WITH A CAPACITY OF 50 PAX. AFTER TAXIING OUT AND WAITING FOR FINAL LOAD NUMBERS, THERE WAS A LONG DELAY (25 MINS). WE HAD TO COMMERCIAL RADIO REQUEST FINAL NUMBERS FROM COMPANY LOAD CTL 3 TIMES. WE RADIOED LCL OPS 4 TIMES REQUESTING FINAL LOAD NUMBERS AND GENERAL STATUS. LCL OPS SENDS (COMPUTER XMISSION) FINAL PAX AND CARGO AND BAG COUNT TO LOAD CTL WHO COMPUTES WT AND BAL CALCULATIONS AND RWY PERFORMANCE DATA WHICH IS COMMERCIAL RADIOED TO THE FLT CREW DATA LINK. WE EVENTUALLY RECEIVED OUR FINAL LOAD NUMBERS AND PERFORMANCE INFO (RWY SPECIFIC). DURING A POSTFLT WALKAROUND, WE DISCOVERED THAT WE HAD 35 MIL DUFFLE/GEAR BAGS WHICH WEIGHED APPROX 75 LBS PER BAG (2625 LBS TOTAL). THESE BAGS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN FINAL LOAD NUMBERS, WT AND BAL, PERFORMANCE DATA. NUMBERS WE RECEIVED WERE 7 BAGS FOR A TOTAL OF 175 LBS, WHICH SEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR NUMBER OF PAX -- 16 TOTAL. IN SUMMARY, COMPANY SUPVRS AND MGRS WERE CONTACTED IMMEDIATELY. APPROPRIATE COMPANY RPTS WERE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED. FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL, NO PERFORMANCE PROBS OR FLT CTL PROBS. FACTORS: MGMNT BUDGET CUTS HAVE HURT MORALE OF RAMP PERSONNEL. EXAMPLE. ON DAY OF OUR PROB, THERE WERE 7 'SICK' CALLS, FROM RAMP EMPLOYEES. THE CONTINUUM OF DOWNTURNS IN THE AVIATION INDUSTRY AND PEOPLE'S LIVES (LAYOFFS, FURLOUGHS, PAY-CUTS, ETC) MAY AFFECT PEOPLE'S PERFORMANCE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR ADVISED THAT THE COMPANY IS TAKING RESPONSIBLE ACTION TO PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF THE INCIDENT. BOTH HE AND THE CAPT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN MEETINGS AND DECISION MAKING BY THE COMPANY. RPTR RE-STRESSED, HOWEVER, HIS CONCERN ABOUT THE STATE OF MORALE WITHIN THE INDUSTRY IN GENERAL AND HIS COMPANY IN PARTICULAR. HE FEARS THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE GOOD INTENTIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES, THE OMNIPRESENT FEAR OF JOB LOSS, LOSS OF BENEFITS, PAY REDUCTIONS AND GENERAL INSECURITY CREATES A DRAIN ON THEIR CAPACITY TO GIVE 100% ATTN TO THE DETAILS OF THEIR JOBS. RPTR FEELS THAT THIS REALITY, MORE SO THAN PROCEDURAL PROBS, LIES AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS ANOMALY.

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.