Narrative:

Weight and balance showed aircraft weight within 3 pounds of maximum gross takeoff weight. We were delayed a few mins at the gate waiting for the runway to reopen due to snow removal operations. We needed to be deiced. Due to the workload with double-checking performance and coordinating for deicing and pushback clearance/runway opening, we overlooked the fact that the trim count exceeded the maximum trim count range on the computerized weight and balance form by 2 people (probably the 2 last-min jumpseaters). We did not takeoff over the maximum gross weight because we spent 45 mins taxiing and deicing, and used bleeds off and ignored headwind benefit without taking performance credit. We burned at least 600 pounds of fuel taxiing compared to the 200 pounds on the weight and balance. A pretkof contamination check was performed in accordance with procedures and documented in the logbook. We had a very short deicing holdover time. In short, as conscientious as we were about details in this high workload, time pressure predep phase, we overlooked the discrepancy of 2 people in the trim count. Although, we did not takeoff over maximum gross weight, we should have ordered a new weight and balance form that showed the trim count range increased by our additional 2 people to comply with flight operations manual procedures. The discrepancy came to light through a company internal audit of weight and balance procedures within approximately 1 week of the incident. Adverse WX, deicing requirements, delay status, and performance limitations all combined for a high workload situation conducive to this oversight. However, the legal requirements are as important as the performance requirements to doing the job right.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMPANY AUDITORS FOUND THE ACTUAL PAX COUNT HAD 2 JUMPSEATERS THAT WERE NOT SHOWN ON THE PAPERWORK. THE ACFT WAS AT MAX GROSS WT WITHOUT THE 2 JUMPSEATERS AND THERE WAS CONCERN THE ACFT WAS ALSO OVER GROSS.

Narrative: WT AND BAL SHOWED ACFT WT WITHIN 3 LBS OF MAX GROSS TKOF WT. WE WERE DELAYED A FEW MINS AT THE GATE WAITING FOR THE RWY TO REOPEN DUE TO SNOW REMOVAL OPS. WE NEEDED TO BE DEICED. DUE TO THE WORKLOAD WITH DOUBLE-CHKING PERFORMANCE AND COORDINATING FOR DEICING AND PUSHBACK CLRNC/RWY OPENING, WE OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE TRIM COUNT EXCEEDED THE MAX TRIM COUNT RANGE ON THE COMPUTERIZED WT AND BAL FORM BY 2 PEOPLE (PROBABLY THE 2 LAST-MIN JUMPSEATERS). WE DID NOT TKOF OVER THE MAX GROSS WT BECAUSE WE SPENT 45 MINS TAXIING AND DEICING, AND USED BLEEDS OFF AND IGNORED HEADWIND BENEFIT WITHOUT TAKING PERFORMANCE CREDIT. WE BURNED AT LEAST 600 LBS OF FUEL TAXIING COMPARED TO THE 200 LBS ON THE WT AND BAL. A PRETKOF CONTAMINATION CHK WAS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCS AND DOCUMENTED IN THE LOGBOOK. WE HAD A VERY SHORT DEICING HOLDOVER TIME. IN SHORT, AS CONSCIENTIOUS AS WE WERE ABOUT DETAILS IN THIS HIGH WORKLOAD, TIME PRESSURE PREDEP PHASE, WE OVERLOOKED THE DISCREPANCY OF 2 PEOPLE IN THE TRIM COUNT. ALTHOUGH, WE DID NOT TKOF OVER MAX GROSS WT, WE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW WT AND BAL FORM THAT SHOWED THE TRIM COUNT RANGE INCREASED BY OUR ADDITIONAL 2 PEOPLE TO COMPLY WITH FLT OPS MANUAL PROCS. THE DISCREPANCY CAME TO LIGHT THROUGH A COMPANY INTERNAL AUDIT OF WT AND BAL PROCS WITHIN APPROX 1 WK OF THE INCIDENT. ADVERSE WX, DEICING REQUIREMENTS, DELAY STATUS, AND PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS ALL COMBINED FOR A HIGH WORKLOAD SIT CONDUCIVE TO THIS OVERSIGHT. HOWEVER, THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ARE AS IMPORTANT AS THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS TO DOING THE JOB RIGHT.

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.