A321 captain reported the aircraft did not become airborne as expected. Flight augmentation computer...

Narrative:

Ground ops were normal leading up to takeoff; including receipt and insertion of revised takeoff data due to actual weight having exceeded planned weight. First officer initiated the configuration 1 takeoff with toga thrust. Acceleration was normal and speeds V1 (162) and vr (169) were called out; rotation was effected at the appropriate rate to the appropriate attitude. The struts were felt to extend; but then the aircraft settled slightly back onto the mains. Accordingly; to avoid a tail strike; first officer held the lift-off pitch attitude while acceleration continued that allowed the aircraft to lift off. With a positive rate-of-climb and gear retraction; the aircraft accelerated and climbed normally.it seemed to both of us that the 'picture' of what we saw at that pitch attitude should have resulted in becoming airborne sooner than what occurred. I do not routinely reference the report on the ACARS aids (aircraft integrated data system) menu; but did so at cruise to find a difference between FMGC weight and facility (flight augmentation computer) weight of 5;000 lbs.dispatch was advised of our lift-off anomaly and we inquired as to what parameters and qa (quality assurance) information could be reviewed. We were informed that an offload audit would be done at destination and that the chief pilot on duty had been notified about the qa monitor.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A321 Captain reported the aircraft did not become airborne as expected. Flight augmentation computer weights indicated a 5000 pound discrepancy (heavier) than the weight and balance calculations.

Narrative: Ground Ops were normal leading up to takeoff; including receipt and insertion of revised takeoff data due to Actual Weight having exceeded Planned Weight. First Officer initiated the configuration 1 takeoff with TOGA Thrust. Acceleration was normal and speeds V1 (162) and VR (169) were called out; rotation was effected at the appropriate rate to the appropriate attitude. The struts were felt to extend; but then the aircraft settled slightly back onto the mains. Accordingly; to avoid a tail strike; First Officer held the lift-off pitch attitude while acceleration continued that allowed the aircraft to lift off. With a positive rate-of-climb and gear retraction; the aircraft accelerated and climbed normally.It seemed to both of us that the 'picture' of what we saw at that pitch attitude should have resulted in becoming airborne sooner than what occurred. I do not routinely reference the report on the ACARS AIDS (Aircraft Integrated Data System) menu; but did so at cruise to find a difference between FMGC weight and FAC (Flight Augmentation Computer) weight of 5;000 lbs.Dispatch was advised of our lift-off anomaly and we inquired as to what parameters and QA (Quality Assurance) information could be reviewed. We were informed that an offload audit would be done at destination and that the chief pilot on duty had been notified about the QA monitor.

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.

Attributes
ACN	1455987
Time
Date	201706
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.Airport
State Reference	US
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	A321
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Takeoff
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Captain Pilot Not Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Events
Anomaly	Deviation - Procedural Weight And Balance

A321 captain reported the aircraft did not become airborne as expected. Flight augmentation computer weights indicated a 5000 pound discrepancy (heavier) than the weight and balance calculations.