Narrative:

While on a scheduled 5 min stop we boarded 2 passenger and their bags. The gate agent and first officer had 1 oversized bag, which was in fact a large box of tools, to load, and since it would fit nowhere else, they loaded it into the nose compartment of the aircraft. It was added to the manifest accordingly and we departed. On the takeoff roll we noticed the yoke force required to rotate was somewhat higher than normal. This prompted me to review the manifest, which is of the average weights type, and I discovered that the nose compartment had been overloaded by about 65 pounds. A review of the loading table given on the manifest showed that with the 2 passenger we had on board, the maximum allowed weight in the nose compartment was 35 pounds, while the actual weight of the tools was 100 pounds. The flight was completed uneventfully. Human factors contributing to this incident were the flight crew's and ground handler's desire to accommodate the passenger by getting his baggage on board, and the desire of all of us to meet the schedule which allowed only 5 mins of load passenger and their bags, review the WX, and approve the manifest. Suggest corrective action to prevent future occurrences of this type would be, in the short term, to improve company training on manifest preparation by including in it a discussion of the possible pitfalls of using the average weights manifest. This would improve the awareness of the ground crews that prepare the manifest and myself as the captain who approves it as to the peculiarities of the average weights manifest loading requirements. For example, the nose compartment on this aircraft can carry up to 576 pounds when there is a large passenger load, but is much more restr in its permissible loading with a light passenger load. In this particular incident, the 100 pound load in the nose would have been permissible with only 1 more passenger enplaned. In the long term, I recommend that FAA require scheduled passenger airlines now operating under far 135 to adhere to the dispatch requirements of far 121, which gives the advantage of a dedicated and certified dispatcher verifying weight, balance, and loading requirements away from the other operational pressures faced by the flight crew aboard the aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN SMT ACR ACFT OPERATED OUTSIDE THE WT AND BAL LIMITATIONS DUE TO THE WT IN THE NOSE BAGGAGE COMPARTMENT VERSUS THE AMOUNT OF PAX WT.

Narrative: WHILE ON A SCHEDULED 5 MIN STOP WE BOARDED 2 PAX AND THEIR BAGS. THE GATE AGENT AND FO HAD 1 OVERSIZED BAG, WHICH WAS IN FACT A LARGE BOX OF TOOLS, TO LOAD, AND SINCE IT WOULD FIT NOWHERE ELSE, THEY LOADED IT INTO THE NOSE COMPARTMENT OF THE ACFT. IT WAS ADDED TO THE MANIFEST ACCORDINGLY AND WE DEPARTED. ON THE TKOF ROLL WE NOTICED THE YOKE FORCE REQUIRED TO ROTATE WAS SOMEWHAT HIGHER THAN NORMAL. THIS PROMPTED ME TO REVIEW THE MANIFEST, WHICH IS OF THE AVERAGE WTS TYPE, AND I DISCOVERED THAT THE NOSE COMPARTMENT HAD BEEN OVERLOADED BY ABOUT 65 LBS. A REVIEW OF THE LOADING TABLE GIVEN ON THE MANIFEST SHOWED THAT WITH THE 2 PAX WE HAD ON BOARD, THE MAX ALLOWED WT IN THE NOSE COMPARTMENT WAS 35 LBS, WHILE THE ACTUAL WT OF THE TOOLS WAS 100 LBS. THE FLT WAS COMPLETED UNEVENTFULLY. HUMAN FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS INCIDENT WERE THE FLC'S AND GND HANDLER'S DESIRE TO ACCOMMODATE THE PAX BY GETTING HIS BAGGAGE ON BOARD, AND THE DESIRE OF ALL OF US TO MEET THE SCHEDULE WHICH ALLOWED ONLY 5 MINS OF LOAD PAX AND THEIR BAGS, REVIEW THE WX, AND APPROVE THE MANIFEST. SUGGEST CORRECTIVE ACTION TO PREVENT FUTURE OCCURRENCES OF THIS TYPE WOULD BE, IN THE SHORT TERM, TO IMPROVE COMPANY TRAINING ON MANIFEST PREPARATION BY INCLUDING IN IT A DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBLE PITFALLS OF USING THE AVERAGE WTS MANIFEST. THIS WOULD IMPROVE THE AWARENESS OF THE GND CREWS THAT PREPARE THE MANIFEST AND MYSELF AS THE CAPT WHO APPROVES IT AS TO THE PECULIARITIES OF THE AVERAGE WTS MANIFEST LOADING REQUIREMENTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE NOSE COMPARTMENT ON THIS ACFT CAN CARRY UP TO 576 LBS WHEN THERE IS A LARGE PAX LOAD, BUT IS MUCH MORE RESTR IN ITS PERMISSIBLE LOADING WITH A LIGHT PAX LOAD. IN THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT, THE 100 LB LOAD IN THE NOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN PERMISSIBLE WITH ONLY 1 MORE PAX ENPLANED. IN THE LONG TERM, I RECOMMEND THAT FAA REQUIRE SCHEDULED PAX AIRLINES NOW OPERATING UNDER FAR 135 TO ADHERE TO THE DISPATCH REQUIREMENTS OF FAR 121, WHICH GIVES THE ADVANTAGE OF A DEDICATED AND CERTIFIED DISPATCHER VERIFYING WT, BAL, AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS AWAY FROM THE OTHER OPERATIONAL PRESSURES FACED BY THE FLC ABOARD THE ACFT.

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.