Weight and balance error. Flight crew received weight corrections and so and first officer did reaso...

Attributes
ACN	340273
Time
Date	199607
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : nrt
State Reference	FO
Altitude	msl bound lower : 200 msl bound upper : 200
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B747-100
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	ground other : taxi
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : commercial pilot : flight engineer pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 16330 flight time type : 4275
ASRS Report	340273
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : flight engineer pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 175 flight time total : 10000 flight time type : 4000
ASRS Report	340272
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

Approximately 3 mins before takeoff we received our weight tab/load advisory via ACARS. Aircraft felt heavy to taxi and first officer said it was very nose heavy on rotate. Shortly after takeoff we received an updated load advisory informing us that we were 110000 pounds heavier than the first load advisory indicated. We had used the same takeoff EPR that we would have for the heavier weight, but we rotated 15-17 KTS early and with a center of gravity setting of 4.5 instead of 6.9. The so said he had felt rushed and had miscalculated his reasonableness check by 100000 pounds. The first officer used the numbers from the first ACARS load advisory for his reasonableness check, and -- garbage in, garbage out. I felt the aircraft taxied much heavier than this ACARS gross weight indicated, so we missed 3 chances to discover the error. Our company has led us down a path which has led us to consider the ACARS weight tab/load advisory as always accurate and infallible. The only checks we do are the reasonableness checks, ie, empty weight + cargo + fuel + passenger weight. If any weights on the load advisory are inaccurate we have no way to check passenger or cargo weight. In this case, I feel I rushed the so and did not use proper CRM. Supplemental information from acn 340272: so requested load advisory via 'request menu' on ACARS. So and first officer completed reasonableness checks and agreed with ACARS data. Checklists completed. Once airborne, the aircraft settled slightly and mushed through the air. Climb out seemed unusually slow. Shortly after 'gear up' we received an ACARS 'load revision' message, at approximately 1500-2000 ft AGL. Crew checked difference in vr and V2 speeds for new weights and found new weights required 15 KTS and 17 KTS higher respectfully. Stabilizer setting changed from 4.5 to 6.9. Crew suspects load advisory data for another flight was erroneously sent to our aircraft.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WT AND BAL ERROR. FLC RECEIVED WT CORRECTIONS AND SO AND FO DID REASONABLENESS CHKS. DURING TAXI, ROTATION AND CLB, THE ACFT SEEMED VERY NOSE HVY. SHORTLY AFTER TKOF FLC RECEIVED ANOTHER REVISION THAT SHOWED WTS HAD INCREASED BY 11000 LBS. B747-200.

Narrative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

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.