37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 1755520 |
Time | |
Date | 202008 |
Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
State Reference | US |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | Parked |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Function | First Officer Pilot Flying |
Qualification | Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 81 Flight Crew Total 5557 Flight Crew Type 4074 |
Person 2 | |
Function | Pilot Not Flying Captain |
Qualification | Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Instrument |
Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 39 Flight Crew Total 4007 Flight Crew Type 4007 |
Events | |
Anomaly | Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Procedural Weight And Balance Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown |
Narrative:
In ZZZ the captain and I arrived at the aircraft we noticed that there was a fuel sheet showing a zero uplift that our actual fuel was above our flight planned fuel. We discussed that and were happy for the extra pad on the fuel. At this time we had a conflict with station operation on catering not supplying water. As well there was no ppe in the cockpit to clean the cockpit correctly for safety. We had a supervisor trying the best to help us in the cockpit get this issue resolved; which never did. At that time we saw that there was a release 2 out. So we the flight crew down loaded the flight plan. The preliminary number for the runway had been ran; ran with the actual fuel load and the new ZFW. About this time we were informed ready to push.after receiving our final weights we discussed the higher planned takeoff weight and determined it was the conservative approach to use the higher weights for are performance calculations. We took off with I believe 129.5 numbers. After takeoff we received an ACARS message that dispatch had not been contacted. This was a mistake we as a crew understood. The rest of the flight went smoothly and we landed using a conservative landing data. After landing during our debrief we discussed the errors of the flight.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Air carrier flight crew reported an SOP error by not informing Load Planning and Dispatch of the actual FOB.
Narrative: In ZZZ the Captain and I arrived at the aircraft we noticed that there was a fuel sheet showing a zero uplift that our actual fuel was above our flight planned fuel. We discussed that and were happy for the extra pad on the fuel. At this time we had a conflict with station operation on catering not supplying water. As well there was no PPE in the cockpit to clean the cockpit correctly for safety. We had a Supervisor trying the best to help us in the cockpit get this issue resolved; which never did. At that time we saw that there was a release 2 out. So we the flight crew down loaded the flight plan. The preliminary number for the runway had been ran; ran with the actual fuel load and the new ZFW. About this time we were informed ready to push.After receiving our final weights we discussed the higher planned takeoff weight and determined it was the conservative approach to use the higher weights for are performance calculations. We took off with I believe 129.5 numbers. After takeoff we received an ACARS message that Dispatch had not been contacted. This was a mistake we as a crew understood. The rest of the flight went smoothly and we landed using a conservative landing data. After landing during our debrief we discussed the errors of the flight.
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.