|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : dca.airport|
|Altitude||agl single value : 0|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Qualification||pilot : commercial|
pilot : multi engine
pilot : instrument
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
|Anomaly||non adherence : company policies|
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||flight crew : overcame equipment problem|
The manifest received idented a takeoff weight that was approximately 16000 pounds less than the planned takeoff weight. We were on a tight wheels up time for flow control. The captain monitored ATC on the taxi as I called operations to resolve the discrepancy per SOP. I told operations personnel that we had a full aircraft, 120 passenger and we wanted to reconfirm our takeoff weights, because we didn't understand the 16000 pound reduction with a full aircraft. She stated that our takeoff weights were correct and the reduction was because 120 bags and other cargo were not xferred from the cancelled flight. I questioned again and stated we had a full flight, 120 passenger, how can the weight drop by 16000 pounds. Again she stated that because of the cargo reduction, the weight was correct. So I asked her if the takeoff weight was 118000 pounds and she said yes. I told the captain the weight was correct and was the result of the cargo reduction and entered the reduced weights. As we were approaching for departure, the captain questioned the weights again. After a discussion, we decided to be conservative and assumed the aircraft was at the heavier weight from the manifest with full passenger and use the appropriate higher v-spds. It was a toga takeoff for runway at dca with the mtog at 135800 pounds and the heavier weight manifest was indicating tog of approximately 134000 pounds. These were the weights we used rather than the 118000 tog manifest we received from load planning. We felt this was a safe course of action and didn't feel it was necessary to cancel our takeoff to go back to operations to resolve an issue they indicated was no issue. The aircraft performance was normal on takeoff. After departure, we began to look further into this final weight manifest that was in error and noticed the passenger count was 020 rather than 120. On the ground, I initially noticed the large discrepancy in the ZFW and it caught my attention. Upon examining the rest of the weight manifest, I didn't notice that the passenger count read '020' instead of '120,' as I usually see it off by no more than a couple of digits. I saw the '020' and it registered as '120,' since that is what I expected to see. At that hour of the evening and feeling rushed, I didn't attribute the large weight differential to a possible passenger discrepancy, so I didn't reconfirm the passenger count. Had I done that, the discrepancy would have been resolved and cleared up prior to takeoff. We focused on the weight drop and called to confirm passenger load and correct weights with operations and never linked this error in the weight with the error in the passenger count. Apparently, neither did operations, as they were adamant the reduced weight was because of the cargo reduction and didn't update the numbers or send us a new manifest when we gave them our, actual passenger count twice. We couldn't easily verify operations assertion the reduced tog was for cargo reduction, as the final weight manifest does not break out cargo weights. We confirmed, in fact we used, the correct weights for departure with dispatch and operations en route to assure we had the correct weights for landing. In retrospect, we should have stopped the departure to resolve the issue of the reduced weight. Apparently, early on in the loading of the aircraft, load planning made a passenger entry error but corrected with the correct passenger count and we should have received the corrected copy. Contributing issues included: the time compression of short taxi to runway, wheels up restrs and flight attendants had 30 mins remaining before going illegal for the flight because of duty time. High workload at dca operations. Fatigue of a long duty day for all involved. The bottom line is the takeoff was normal with the correct weights and performance, but the process to get there was less than desirable.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FLT CREW OF A319 RECEIVED FINAL WT MANIFEST WITH TOG 16000 LBS LESS THAN ORIGINALLY PLANNED.
Narrative: THE MANIFEST RECEIVED IDENTED A TKOF WT THAT WAS APPROX 16000 LBS LESS THAN THE PLANNED TKOF WT. WE WERE ON A TIGHT WHEELS UP TIME FOR FLOW CTL. THE CAPT MONITORED ATC ON THE TAXI AS I CALLED OPS TO RESOLVE THE DISCREPANCY PER SOP. I TOLD OPS PERSONNEL THAT WE HAD A FULL ACFT, 120 PAX AND WE WANTED TO RECONFIRM OUR TKOF WTS, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE 16000 LB REDUCTION WITH A FULL ACFT. SHE STATED THAT OUR TKOF WTS WERE CORRECT AND THE REDUCTION WAS BECAUSE 120 BAGS AND OTHER CARGO WERE NOT XFERRED FROM THE CANCELLED FLT. I QUESTIONED AGAIN AND STATED WE HAD A FULL FLT, 120 PAX, HOW CAN THE WT DROP BY 16000 LBS. AGAIN SHE STATED THAT BECAUSE OF THE CARGO REDUCTION, THE WT WAS CORRECT. SO I ASKED HER IF THE TKOF WT WAS 118000 LBS AND SHE SAID YES. I TOLD THE CAPT THE WT WAS CORRECT AND WAS THE RESULT OF THE CARGO REDUCTION AND ENTERED THE REDUCED WTS. AS WE WERE APCHING FOR DEP, THE CAPT QUESTIONED THE WTS AGAIN. AFTER A DISCUSSION, WE DECIDED TO BE CONSERVATIVE AND ASSUMED THE ACFT WAS AT THE HEAVIER WT FROM THE MANIFEST WITH FULL PAX AND USE THE APPROPRIATE HIGHER V-SPDS. IT WAS A TOGA TKOF FOR RWY AT DCA WITH THE MTOG AT 135800 LBS AND THE HEAVIER WT MANIFEST WAS INDICATING TOG OF APPROX 134000 LBS. THESE WERE THE WTS WE USED RATHER THAN THE 118000 TOG MANIFEST WE RECEIVED FROM LOAD PLANNING. WE FELT THIS WAS A SAFE COURSE OF ACTION AND DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY TO CANCEL OUR TKOF TO GO BACK TO OPS TO RESOLVE AN ISSUE THEY INDICATED WAS NO ISSUE. THE ACFT PERFORMANCE WAS NORMAL ON TKOF. AFTER DEP, WE BEGAN TO LOOK FURTHER INTO THIS FINAL WT MANIFEST THAT WAS IN ERROR AND NOTICED THE PAX COUNT WAS 020 RATHER THAN 120. ON THE GND, I INITIALLY NOTICED THE LARGE DISCREPANCY IN THE ZFW AND IT CAUGHT MY ATTN. UPON EXAMINING THE REST OF THE WT MANIFEST, I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT THE PAX COUNT READ '020' INSTEAD OF '120,' AS I USUALLY SEE IT OFF BY NO MORE THAN A COUPLE OF DIGITS. I SAW THE '020' AND IT REGISTERED AS '120,' SINCE THAT IS WHAT I EXPECTED TO SEE. AT THAT HR OF THE EVENING AND FEELING RUSHED, I DIDN'T ATTRIBUTE THE LARGE WT DIFFERENTIAL TO A POSSIBLE PAX DISCREPANCY, SO I DIDN'T RECONFIRM THE PAX COUNT. HAD I DONE THAT, THE DISCREPANCY WOULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED AND CLRED UP PRIOR TO TKOF. WE FOCUSED ON THE WT DROP AND CALLED TO CONFIRM PAX LOAD AND CORRECT WTS WITH OPS AND NEVER LINKED THIS ERROR IN THE WT WITH THE ERROR IN THE PAX COUNT. APPARENTLY, NEITHER DID OPS, AS THEY WERE ADAMANT THE REDUCED WT WAS BECAUSE OF THE CARGO REDUCTION AND DIDN'T UPDATE THE NUMBERS OR SEND US A NEW MANIFEST WHEN WE GAVE THEM OUR, ACTUAL PAX COUNT TWICE. WE COULDN'T EASILY VERIFY OPS ASSERTION THE REDUCED TOG WAS FOR CARGO REDUCTION, AS THE FINAL WT MANIFEST DOES NOT BREAK OUT CARGO WTS. WE CONFIRMED, IN FACT WE USED, THE CORRECT WTS FOR DEP WITH DISPATCH AND OPS ENRTE TO ASSURE WE HAD THE CORRECT WTS FOR LNDG. IN RETROSPECT, WE SHOULD HAVE STOPPED THE DEP TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE OF THE REDUCED WT. APPARENTLY, EARLY ON IN THE LOADING OF THE ACFT, LOAD PLANNING MADE A PAX ENTRY ERROR BUT CORRECTED WITH THE CORRECT PAX COUNT AND WE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE CORRECTED COPY. CONTRIBUTING ISSUES INCLUDED: THE TIME COMPRESSION OF SHORT TAXI TO RWY, WHEELS UP RESTRS AND FLT ATTENDANTS HAD 30 MINS REMAINING BEFORE GOING ILLEGAL FOR THE FLT BECAUSE OF DUTY TIME. HIGH WORKLOAD AT DCA OPS. FATIGUE OF A LONG DUTY DAY FOR ALL INVOLVED. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE TKOF WAS NORMAL WITH THE CORRECT WTS AND PERFORMANCE, BUT THE PROCESS TO GET THERE WAS LESS THAN DESIRABLE.
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.