Overweight takeoff.

Attributes
ACN	301028
Time
Date	199504
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	0001 To 0600
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lax
State Reference	CA
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 235 flight time total : 12000 flight time type : 2700
ASRS Report	301028
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 170 flight time total : 11000 flight time type : 3000
ASRS Report	301358
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : unspecified other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

Believe aircraft was loaded to a heavier weight than our 'load advice' that was sent via ACARS. Aircraft performance, fuel burn to destination, etc, was indicative of a loading error of approximately 10000 pounds. No information provided to crew to substantiate this as of this filing. Supplemental information from acn 301358: fully loaded aircraft (all seats filled) plus a heavy cargo load. We were legal by 100 pounds for departure using air conditioning packs off, flaps 1, variable speed procedure. 1) takeoff roll seemed very long, 2) onboard sensors detected we were heavier than the weight we'd programmed into our computers and generated a 'check gross weight' advisory message. Lax operations closes after this 'red-eye' flight departs, so it was too late to contact them to 'recalculate' our weight, 3) en route climb capability was substandard, 4) landed 2200 pounds over on fuel burn, 5) causes: over reliance on estimating of weights or accepting shippers declared weights which could be under-reported in an effort to reduce shipping costs?

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: OVERWT TKOF.

Narrative: BELIEVE ACFT WAS LOADED TO A HEAVIER WT THAN OUR 'LOAD ADVICE' THAT WAS SENT VIA ACARS. ACFT PERFORMANCE, FUEL BURN TO DEST, ETC, WAS INDICATIVE OF A LOADING ERROR OF APPROX 10000 LBS. NO INFO PROVIDED TO CREW TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS AS OF THIS FILING. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 301358: FULLY LOADED ACFT (ALL SEATS FILLED) PLUS A HVY CARGO LOAD. WE WERE LEGAL BY 100 LBS FOR DEP USING AIR CONDITIONING PACKS OFF, FLAPS 1, VARIABLE SPD PROC. 1) TKOF ROLL SEEMED VERY LONG, 2) ONBOARD SENSORS DETECTED WE WERE HEAVIER THAN THE WT WE'D PROGRAMMED INTO OUR COMPUTERS AND GENERATED A 'CHK GROSS WT' ADVISORY MESSAGE. LAX OPS CLOSES AFTER THIS 'RED-EYE' FLT DEPARTS, SO IT WAS TOO LATE TO CONTACT THEM TO 'RECALCULATE' OUR WT, 3) ENRTE CLB CAPABILITY WAS SUBSTANDARD, 4) LANDED 2200 LBS OVER ON FUEL BURN, 5) CAUSES: OVER RELIANCE ON ESTIMATING OF WTS OR ACCEPTING SHIPPERS DECLARED WTS WHICH COULD BE UNDER-RPTED IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE SHIPPING COSTS?

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.