|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||0601 To 1200|
|Locale Reference||airport : mia|
|Altitude||agl bound lower : 0|
agl bound upper : 0
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng|
|Flight Phase||ground : preflight|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
pilot : cfi
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 224|
flight time total : 13000
flight time type : 5000
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Qualification||pilot : commercial|
pilot : instrument
|Anomaly||other anomaly other|
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : detected after the fact|
|Air Traffic Incident||other|
At scheduled departure from mia to mco we were given a computerized weight and balance and the cabin door was closed for departure. The ground crew was ready to push and I computed the takeoff power setting while the first officer computed the stabilizer setting from the information on the form. This was done hurriedly to depart on schedule. The numbers were within limits for the airplane and the takeoff and flts were normal. Approaching mco the landing weight was computed and the aircraft was slightly over landing weight. This seemed very odd, but I still assumed the weights we were given were correct. After recomputing the weights (165 for each passenger rather than 170 which is allowed for summer) and counting infants, I decided that we were going to land right at 71000 pounds (maximum gross landing weight). After arrival at the gate, I decided that since the paperwork still showed us to be overweight I should write up an overweight landing and have an inspection completed. This was done and maintenance signed off an inspection. Subsequently, I realized that the weight and balance provided by the mia station was for aircraft xx rather than Y which we were flying. Xx is an medium large transport a series with higher weight, while Y is a B series. After running a weight and balance for the proper aircraft, we were well under landing weight, but all of our provided data was incorrect. There probably was not a true safety problem in this case, as we were lighter than the weights used, but because of the ambiguity of the form in use by the company, it was not immediately apparent that it was for the wrong aircraft. All of the remaining paperwork was for the correct aircraft. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states aircraft was substituted previous evening but night dispatch crew neglected to inform day dispatch crew. Information for original aircraft given to flight crew. Reporter used opportunity to show director of operations the forms used by his company before merger. Much better organized and easier to read. Information taken to top mgt.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: WRONG ACFT WEIGHT AND BALANCE.
Narrative: AT SCHEDULED DEP FROM MIA TO MCO WE WERE GIVEN A COMPUTERIZED WT AND BAL AND THE CABIN DOOR WAS CLOSED FOR DEP. THE GND CREW WAS READY TO PUSH AND I COMPUTED THE TKOF PWR SETTING WHILE THE F/O COMPUTED THE STAB SETTING FROM THE INFO ON THE FORM. THIS WAS DONE HURRIEDLY TO DEPART ON SCHEDULE. THE NUMBERS WERE WITHIN LIMITS FOR THE AIRPLANE AND THE TKOF AND FLTS WERE NORMAL. APCHING MCO THE LNDG WT WAS COMPUTED AND THE ACFT WAS SLIGHTLY OVER LNDG WT. THIS SEEMED VERY ODD, BUT I STILL ASSUMED THE WTS WE WERE GIVEN WERE CORRECT. AFTER RECOMPUTING THE WTS (165 FOR EACH PAX RATHER THAN 170 WHICH IS ALLOWED FOR SUMMER) AND COUNTING INFANTS, I DECIDED THAT WE WERE GOING TO LAND RIGHT AT 71000 LBS (MAX GROSS LNDG WT). AFTER ARR AT THE GATE, I DECIDED THAT SINCE THE PAPERWORK STILL SHOWED US TO BE OVERWEIGHT I SHOULD WRITE UP AN OVERWT LNDG AND HAVE AN INSPECTION COMPLETED. THIS WAS DONE AND MAINT SIGNED OFF AN INSPECTION. SUBSEQUENTLY, I REALIZED THAT THE WT AND BAL PROVIDED BY THE MIA STATION WAS FOR ACFT XX RATHER THAN Y WHICH WE WERE FLYING. XX IS AN MLG A SERIES WITH HIGHER WT, WHILE Y IS A B SERIES. AFTER RUNNING A WT AND BAL FOR THE PROPER ACFT, WE WERE WELL UNDER LNDG WT, BUT ALL OF OUR PROVIDED DATA WAS INCORRECT. THERE PROBABLY WAS NOT A TRUE SAFETY PROB IN THIS CASE, AS WE WERE LIGHTER THAN THE WTS USED, BUT BECAUSE OF THE AMBIGUITY OF THE FORM IN USE BY THE COMPANY, IT WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT THAT IT WAS FOR THE WRONG ACFT. ALL OF THE REMAINING PAPERWORK WAS FOR THE CORRECT ACFT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATES ACFT WAS SUBSTITUTED PREVIOUS EVENING BUT NIGHT DISPATCH CREW NEGLECTED TO INFORM DAY DISPATCH CREW. INFO FOR ORIGINAL ACFT GIVEN TO FLT CREW. RPTR USED OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW DIRECTOR OF OPS THE FORMS USED BY HIS COMPANY BEFORE MERGER. MUCH BETTER ORGANIZED AND EASIER TO READ. INFO TAKEN TO TOP MGT.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.