Air carrier widebody transport so claims takeoff based on wet runway data but actual contaminated co...

Attributes
ACN	139169
Time
Date	199003
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : den
State Reference	CO
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Widebody, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : second officer
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer
ASRS Report	139169
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Ambiguous
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

Significant snowfall had been accumulating prior to pushback on a flight already delayed by several hours. Weight manifest numbers received by flight crew from the load planner/dispatcher were supposed to be for a contaminated runway. However, the maximum gross weight for takeoff was higher than I had calculated using onboard performance charts. After calling to query, I was told by dispatch that wet runway maximum tow had been given to the crew despite an accumulation of snow on the runway that I considered contaminated. (A contaminated code was provided for weight adjustment and not a wet runway code.) I brought this to the captain's attention that the numbers seemed too high and I showed him my calculations. He took a 'wait and let's see what happens' posture and nothing more was said. We did, in fact, takeoff with RVR of 700/800/600 (minimums being 600/600/600). However from my position at the second officer's panel, I could not see runway center lights. I feel that we may not have had minimum RVR for takeoff at brake release, and I think we were overweight for runway conditions. I think we should have insisted that passenger/cargo be down loaded to make maximum gross tow as computed for contaminated runway. Deice procedures were accomplished properly and within prescribed time for takeoff.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR WDB SO CLAIMS TKOF BASED ON WET RWY DATA BUT ACTUAL CONTAMINATED CONDITIONS, AND THAT TKOF WAS CONDUCTED BELOW TKOF MINIMA.

Narrative: SIGNIFICANT SNOWFALL HAD BEEN ACCUMULATING PRIOR TO PUSHBACK ON A FLT ALREADY DELAYED BY SEVERAL HRS. WT MANIFEST NUMBERS RECEIVED BY FLT CREW FROM THE LOAD PLANNER/DISPATCHER WERE SUPPOSED TO BE FOR A CONTAMINATED RWY. HOWEVER, THE MAX GROSS WT FOR TKOF WAS HIGHER THAN I HAD CALCULATED USING ONBOARD PERFORMANCE CHARTS. AFTER CALLING TO QUERY, I WAS TOLD BY DISPATCH THAT WET RWY MAX TOW HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE CREW DESPITE AN ACCUMULATION OF SNOW ON THE RWY THAT I CONSIDERED CONTAMINATED. (A CONTAMINATED CODE WAS PROVIDED FOR WT ADJUSTMENT AND NOT A WET RWY CODE.) I BROUGHT THIS TO THE CAPT'S ATTN THAT THE NUMBERS SEEMED TOO HIGH AND I SHOWED HIM MY CALCULATIONS. HE TOOK A 'WAIT AND LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS' POSTURE AND NOTHING MORE WAS SAID. WE DID, IN FACT, TKOF WITH RVR OF 700/800/600 (MINIMUMS BEING 600/600/600). HOWEVER FROM MY POS AT THE S/O'S PANEL, I COULD NOT SEE RWY CENTER LIGHTS. I FEEL THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE HAD MINIMUM RVR FOR TKOF AT BRAKE RELEASE, AND I THINK WE WERE OVERWEIGHT FOR RWY CONDITIONS. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE INSISTED THAT PAX/CARGO BE DOWN LOADED TO MAKE MAX GROSS TOW AS COMPUTED FOR CONTAMINATED RWY. DEICE PROCS WERE ACCOMPLISHED PROPERLY AND WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME FOR TKOF.

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.

Air carrier widebody transport so claims takeoff based on wet runway data but actual contaminated conditions, and that takeoff was conducted below takeoff minima.