Narrative:

Our company operates aircraft under an approved loading schedule using average passenger and bag weights. On this particular flight the passenger (a heavy, but not full load) were seated within the loading schedule, but more were in back than in front. Just prior to departure, the ramp agent reported a total of 22 bags. The loading schedule calls for 4 bags to be placed in the nose instead of the aft baggage area. The ramp agent confirmed that 4 bags were in the nose. I was the copilot on this flight. I set the trim in the aft range considering the load. This was my leg. Upon rotation the aircraft over-rotated and required considerable forward stick force to maintain normal attitude prior to trim being reset. This was not too unusual considering the control forces are often heavy in this aircraft. However, during climb I noticed that the aircraft felt neutrally stable. Pitch attitude varied considerably and was difficult to control. Landing was very difficult and required heavy forward pressure at 10' when the nose started to rise on its own. After clearing the runway I observed the trim indicator of the aft limit of thee takeoff range very unusual. The ramp crew counted the bags and came up with 22 bags in back in addition to the 4 in front. The real problem, however, was that most of the bags exceeded the 23.516 average and 3 bags could not be lifted by the agent and were described as way over the 70 pounds limit for checked baggage. I believe the loading schedule is very safe and effective as long as the rules are followed and overweight bags are not counted as average. Ramp crews should be trained to look out for excessively heavy bags.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT FELT TAIL HEAVY ON TKOF AND IN FLT. ON LNDG NOSE TENDED TO RISE. POST FLT INSPECTION REVEALED TOO MANY AND TOO HEAVY BAGS IN REAR OF ACFT. PASSENGERS SEATED AFT.

Narrative: OUR COMPANY OPERATES ACFT UNDER AN APPROVED LOADING SCHEDULE USING AVERAGE PAX AND BAG WTS. ON THIS PARTICULAR FLT THE PAX (A HEAVY, BUT NOT FULL LOAD) WERE SEATED WITHIN THE LOADING SCHEDULE, BUT MORE WERE IN BACK THAN IN FRONT. JUST PRIOR TO DEP, THE RAMP AGENT RPTED A TOTAL OF 22 BAGS. THE LOADING SCHEDULE CALLS FOR 4 BAGS TO BE PLACED IN THE NOSE INSTEAD OF THE AFT BAGGAGE AREA. THE RAMP AGENT CONFIRMED THAT 4 BAGS WERE IN THE NOSE. I WAS THE COPLT ON THIS FLT. I SET THE TRIM IN THE AFT RANGE CONSIDERING THE LOAD. THIS WAS MY LEG. UPON ROTATION THE ACFT OVER-ROTATED AND REQUIRED CONSIDERABLE FORWARD STICK FORCE TO MAINTAIN NORMAL ATTITUDE PRIOR TO TRIM BEING RESET. THIS WAS NOT TOO UNUSUAL CONSIDERING THE CTL FORCES ARE OFTEN HEAVY IN THIS ACFT. HOWEVER, DURING CLB I NOTICED THAT THE ACFT FELT NEUTRALLY STABLE. PITCH ATTITUDE VARIED CONSIDERABLY AND WAS DIFFICULT TO CTL. LNDG WAS VERY DIFFICULT AND REQUIRED HEAVY FORWARD PRESSURE AT 10' WHEN THE NOSE STARTED TO RISE ON ITS OWN. AFTER CLRING THE RWY I OBSERVED THE TRIM INDICATOR OF THE AFT LIMIT OF THEE TKOF RANGE VERY UNUSUAL. THE RAMP CREW COUNTED THE BAGS AND CAME UP WITH 22 BAGS IN BACK IN ADDITION TO THE 4 IN FRONT. THE REAL PROB, HOWEVER, WAS THAT MOST OF THE BAGS EXCEEDED THE 23.516 AVERAGE AND 3 BAGS COULD NOT BE LIFTED BY THE AGENT AND WERE DESCRIBED AS WAY OVER THE 70 LBS LIMIT FOR CHKED BAGGAGE. I BELIEVE THE LOADING SCHEDULE IS VERY SAFE AND EFFECTIVE AS LONG AS THE RULES ARE FOLLOWED AND OVERWT BAGS ARE NOT COUNTED AS AVERAGE. RAMP CREWS SHOULD BE TRAINED TO LOOK OUT FOR EXCESSIVELY HEAVY BAGS.

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.