Narrative:

We flew the trip and exceeded zero fuel certified weight of the aircraft from sfo to anc. I was checking our landing weight on descent into anc and discovered that the zero fuel weight of the aircraft of 590000 pounds was exceeded by 51 pounds 590051 on load advice. When I asked second officer about it he said 'I saw it but they would have just changed the numbers or would have taken a package off, so I didn't say anything.' great! 2 people who were supposed to catch it, didn't catch it or didn't think FAA limits are limits. Flying the back side of the clock was a contributing factor. I didn't catch it and weight and balance person missed it. I know there is an overweight landing inspection but not for over zero fuel weight so I didn't write it up. Flying the back side of the clock was probably the biggest factor. As we turned a long final we were 630000 pounds (40000# fuel) however at ramp the fuel remaining indicated 41000# but fuel used was 103000# so according to our company fuel used is more accurate and we were under 63000# for landing. Another contributing factor is a second officer with a 'if it south close its good enough attitude.' another was the empty weight of aircraft written on second officer panel in grease pencil. It said 334000# but this being widebody transport instead of a widebody transport it was 336000# actually. I had added load of 254062# to 334000# and it came out 588062 pounds. Callback conversation with reporter revealed following information. Reporter explained his duty hours and how they caused the fatigue that may have contributed to this pilot deviation. He offered no excuses.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WDB EXCEEDS MAXIMUM ZERO FUEL WEIGHT.

Narrative: WE FLEW THE TRIP AND EXCEEDED ZERO FUEL CERTIFIED WT OF THE ACFT FROM SFO TO ANC. I WAS CHKING OUR LNDG WT ON DSNT INTO ANC AND DISCOVERED THAT THE ZERO FUEL WT OF THE ACFT OF 590000 LBS WAS EXCEEDED BY 51 LBS 590051 ON LOAD ADVICE. WHEN I ASKED S/O ABOUT IT HE SAID 'I SAW IT BUT THEY WOULD HAVE JUST CHANGED THE NUMBERS OR WOULD HAVE TAKEN A PACKAGE OFF, SO I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING.' GREAT! 2 PEOPLE WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO CATCH IT, DIDN'T CATCH IT OR DIDN'T THINK FAA LIMITS ARE LIMITS. FLYING THE BACK SIDE OF THE CLOCK WAS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR. I DIDN'T CATCH IT AND WT AND BAL PERSON MISSED IT. I KNOW THERE IS AN OVERWT LNDG INSPECTION BUT NOT FOR OVER ZERO FUEL WT SO I DIDN'T WRITE IT UP. FLYING THE BACK SIDE OF THE CLOCK WAS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST FACTOR. AS WE TURNED A LONG FINAL WE WERE 630000 LBS (40000# FUEL) HOWEVER AT RAMP THE FUEL REMAINING INDICATED 41000# BUT FUEL USED WAS 103000# SO ACCORDING TO OUR COMPANY FUEL USED IS MORE ACCURATE AND WE WERE UNDER 63000# FOR LNDG. ANOTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IS A S/O WITH A 'IF IT S CLOSE ITS GOOD ENOUGH ATTITUDE.' ANOTHER WAS THE EMPTY WT OF ACFT WRITTEN ON S/O PANEL IN GREASE PENCIL. IT SAID 334000# BUT THIS BEING WDB INSTEAD OF A WDB IT WAS 336000# ACTUALLY. I HAD ADDED LOAD OF 254062# TO 334000# AND IT CAME OUT 588062 LBS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED FOLLOWING INFO. RPTR EXPLAINED HIS DUTY HOURS AND HOW THEY CAUSED THE FATIGUE THAT MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS PLT DEVIATION. HE OFFERED NO EXCUSES.

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.