|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||0601 To 1200|
|Locale Reference||airport : mco.airport|
|Altitude||agl single value : 0|
|Controlling Facilities||tracon : zzz.tracon|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||A320|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 121|
|Flight Phase||ground : preflight|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
observation : company check pilot
oversight : pic
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 120|
flight time total : 18500
flight time type : 6500
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 270|
flight time total : 6000
flight time type : 1300
|Anomaly||non adherence : company policies|
non adherence : published procedure
non adherence : far
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
other flight crewb
|Resolutory Action||none taken : unable|
Final weights came over ACARS showed ZFW had decreased by 11.3 pounds from flight plan. Did not seem correct so we ACARS load planning to check ZFW. They came back with same ZFW 120.9. Still didn't seem right so sent 2ND ACARS again asking them to check ZFW. Came back 3RD time ZFW of 120.9. So we pulled off and told ground we needed final weights and sent message to dispatch and asked them to check with load planning about our ZFW. Dispatch came back and said ZFW was 120.9 and they were sending a new weight and balance to reflect that change. So after asking company 3 times if ZFW was correct and being told it was we pulled up new performance and departed. In route I still felt bothered by the decrease. So I asked dispatch why the reduction. They ACARS back and said due to kid count. I asked how many kids were required to lower weight by 11.0. Dispatch had load planning call station. Turns out mco had entered 132 kids vs 13. So we used numbers 11.0 lower than actual weight. During this event first officer and I discussed using higher number but decided that after asking load planning 3 times then final weights were good. At some point you have to accept the answer. We talk about red flags. An 11.0 drop in ZFW was a huge red flag to us and should have been to load planning. Having a crew call to confirm should have been another red flag; and to call 2 more times should have screamed to them something is wrong look at it. What could I have done. First; used the higher numbers. We were good on that runway and it would have been the most conservative. Second; I should have asked why the change not just asked them to run the numbers. Once I found out it was a kid count I would have known that was wrong and finally; our message to dispatch could have included a more detailed request to confirm. I think dispatch saw it as our requirement to notify them of ZFW change as stated in the fom and they just ran a new weight and balance. Load planning has mentioned since mco always uses kid count maybe we could list kids on the final weights.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A320 FLT CREW HAD INCORRECT ZFW NUMBERS SUPPLIED AND DEP WITH WRONG WT AND BAL FIGURES.
Narrative: FINAL WTS CAME OVER ACARS SHOWED ZFW HAD DECREASED BY 11.3 LBS FROM FLT PLAN. DID NOT SEEM CORRECT SO WE ACARS LOAD PLANNING TO CHECK ZFW. THEY CAME BACK WITH SAME ZFW 120.9. STILL DIDN'T SEEM RIGHT SO SENT 2ND ACARS AGAIN ASKING THEM TO CHECK ZFW. CAME BACK 3RD TIME ZFW OF 120.9. SO WE PULLED OFF AND TOLD GND WE NEEDED FINAL WTS AND SENT MESSAGE TO DISPATCH AND ASKED THEM TO CHECK WITH LOAD PLANNING ABOUT OUR ZFW. DISPATCH CAME BACK AND SAID ZFW WAS 120.9 AND THEY WERE SENDING A NEW WT AND BAL TO REFLECT THAT CHANGE. SO AFTER ASKING COMPANY 3 TIMES IF ZFW WAS CORRECT AND BEING TOLD IT WAS WE PULLED UP NEW PERFORMANCE AND DEPARTED. IN ROUTE I STILL FELT BOTHERED BY THE DECREASE. SO I ASKED DISPATCH WHY THE REDUCTION. THEY ACARS BACK AND SAID DUE TO KID COUNT. I ASKED HOW MANY KIDS WERE REQUIRED TO LOWER WT BY 11.0. DISPATCH HAD LOAD PLANNING CALL STATION. TURNS OUT MCO HAD ENTERED 132 KIDS VS 13. SO WE USED NUMBERS 11.0 LOWER THAN ACTUAL WT. DURING THIS EVENT FO AND I DISCUSSED USING HIGHER NUMBER BUT DECIDED THAT AFTER ASKING LOAD PLANNING 3 TIMES THEN FINAL WTS WERE GOOD. AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THE ANSWER. WE TALK ABOUT RED FLAGS. AN 11.0 DROP IN ZFW WAS A HUGE RED FLAG TO US AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN TO LOAD PLANNING. HAVING A CREW CALL TO CONFIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANOTHER RED FLAG; AND TO CALL 2 MORE TIMES SHOULD HAVE SCREAMED TO THEM SOMETHING IS WRONG LOOK AT IT. WHAT COULD I HAVE DONE. FIRST; USED THE HIGHER NUMBERS. WE WERE GOOD ON THAT RUNWAY AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE MOST CONSERVATIVE. SECOND; I SHOULD HAVE ASKED WHY THE CHANGE NOT JUST ASKED THEM TO RUN THE NUMBERS. ONCE I FOUND OUT IT WAS A KID COUNT I WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT WAS WRONG AND FINALLY; OUR MESSAGE TO DISPATCH COULD HAVE INCLUDED A MORE DETAILED REQUEST TO CONFIRM. I THINK DISPATCH SAW IT AS OUR REQUIREMENT TO NOTIFY THEM OF ZFW CHANGE AS STATED IN THE FOM AND THEY JUST RAN A NEW WT AND BAL. LOAD PLANNING HAS MENTIONED SINCE MCO ALWAYS USES KID COUNT MAYBE WE COULD LIST KIDS ON THE FINAL WTS.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.