Narrative:

Our flight was changed to an -800 from the scheduled -700. Our agent stated that she had never worked an -800 flight before. Our passenger load was fairly light; and the agent knew in advance that a zone count would be required; and she had an approximation of what count would be required in each zone in order to be within limits.when the agent delivered the loading schedule to us; her zone count matched her pre-planned numbers. Shortly after this; she closed the front door; and then the flight attendant (flight attendant) gave us their passenger count form. It was immediately obvious that the numbers on the flight attendant form and on the loading schedule bore no relationship to each other whatsoever. (This probably shouldn't be surprising; since the loading schedule had been printed before the final count by the fas was complete.)I had the agent pull the jetway back to the aircraft and explained to her that simply having numbers on her form that reflected a particular distribution of passengers in the aircraft was not enough; the numbers on her form needed to reflect the actual location of the passengers. She attempted to print a loading schedule using the actual zone count that we had; but was unable as the trim units were out of limits.the situation was resolved by moving passengers in the cabin; and a new count was accomplished. This count allowed the loading schedule to be printed; and we departed without further incident.agents need to understand (in the most clear terms possible) that making the numbers right in the computer; without those numbers reflecting reality; is unsafe and unacceptable. This isn't the first time I've had an agent do something like this; and I suspect that my two experiences are not unique.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A station agent unfamiliar with; and apparently; untrained on weight and balance computations for the B737-800; provided passenger numbers and distribution which met the computation demands but did not reflect the actual location of the passengers on board. When computed with their actual location the resulting trim setting was rejected as out of limits. Relocating the passengers produced a valid and operationally acceptable center of gravity and the flight departed.

Narrative: Our flight was changed to an -800 from the scheduled -700. Our Agent stated that she had never worked an -800 flight before. Our Passenger load was fairly light; and the Agent knew in advance that a zone count would be required; and she had an approximation of what count would be required in each zone in order to be within limits.When the Agent delivered the Loading Schedule to us; her zone count matched her pre-planned numbers. Shortly after this; she closed the front door; and then the Flight Attendant (FA) gave us their Passenger count form. It was immediately obvious that the numbers on the FA form and on the loading schedule bore no relationship to each other whatsoever. (This probably shouldn't be surprising; since the loading schedule had been printed before the final count by the FAs was complete.)I had the Agent pull the jetway back to the aircraft and explained to her that simply having numbers on her form that reflected a particular distribution of Passengers in the aircraft was not enough; the numbers on her form needed to reflect the actual location of the Passengers. She attempted to print a loading schedule using the actual zone count that we had; but was unable as the trim units were out of limits.The situation was resolved by moving Passengers in the cabin; and a new count was accomplished. This count allowed the loading schedule to be printed; and we departed without further incident.Agents need to understand (in the most clear terms possible) that making the numbers right in the computer; without those numbers reflecting reality; is unsafe and unacceptable. This isn't the first time I've had an Agent do something like this; and I suspect that my two experiences are not unique.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.