 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Erj-175 flight crew reported they departed with cg out of limits because of an incorrect load report.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1571277 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201808 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | Marginal |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR |
| Flight Phase | Parked |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Pilot Not Flying Captain |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | First Officer Pilot Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Procedural Weight And Balance |
Narrative:
The ramp gave us a cargo load report that indicated all of the baggage and cargo were in the forward pit with a total weight of 2;818 pounds. After takeoff we received a message from dispatch that indicated that the cargo was split between the forward and aft pit. 1;530 pounds of bags were actually placed in the aft compartment and 1;288 pounds of mail was put in the forward cargo pit. This configuration put us out of our aft cg limits for takeoff with a gtow (gross takeoff weight) 78;493 pounds and an actual cg 24.7% of our mac. There was a cg calculated due to the error which showed us at 17.6% of mac with the same gtow. The preflight calculations showed us within limits. As far [as] we knew the airplane was within cg limits. We felt that the airplane pitched up more steeply than usual and seemed to rotate more aggressively than usual. The trim was not set correctly either due the bad data we were given.miscommunication and inattention by baggage loading personnel. Better training for baggage loaders and verification of actual cargo loading configuration by a trained supervisor to prevent such errors. Also requiring two people to both visually verify where cargo is placed versus the weight.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ERJ-175 flight crew reported they departed with CG out of limits because of an incorrect load report.
Narrative: The ramp gave us a cargo load report that indicated all of the baggage and cargo were in the forward pit with a total weight of 2;818 LBS. After takeoff we received a message from Dispatch that indicated that the cargo was split between the forward and aft pit. 1;530 LBS of bags were actually placed in the aft compartment and 1;288 LBS of mail was put in the forward cargo pit. This configuration put us out of our aft CG limits for takeoff with a GTOW (Gross Takeoff Weight) 78;493 LBS and an actual CG 24.7% of our MAC. There was a CG calculated due to the error which showed us at 17.6% of MAC with the same GTOW. The preflight calculations showed us within limits. As far [as] we knew the airplane was within CG limits. We felt that the airplane pitched up more steeply than usual and seemed to rotate more aggressively than usual. The trim was not set correctly either due the bad data we were given.Miscommunication and inattention by baggage loading personnel. Better training for baggage loaders and verification of actual cargo loading configuration by a trained supervisor to prevent such errors. Also requiring two people to both visually verify where cargo is placed versus the weight.
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.