Narrative:

This was a very standard/normal flight until after the main wheels touched on landing. At this time the aircraft assumed a much higher pitch angle (enough to touch the tail), with the main wheels rolling down the runway. My initial control inputs were relaxation of the yoke (ie, yoke forward). This would normally cause the nosewheel to lower toward the ground. This aircraft, however, did not respond normally and maintained this very nose high pitch attitude. I then pushed the yoke fully forward (ie, into the instrument panel) and the nose of the aircraft reluctantly lowered resulting in nosewheel touchdown. Total time of tail contact was 2 seconds, although it is hard to say exactly as there were no perceptible sounds in the cockpit. After taxi/shutdown, I immediately deplaned to inspect the tail (at this point still not sure if we had definitely hit) and noticed paint and metal worn from the tailstand holder and aft dorsal fins. I commanded the bag handler to count the bags coming off the aircraft and also take note of the size. Here's what they found: a total of 52 bags, not 47 as listed on our documents. The originating bag handler is responsible for an accurate count. We, as pilots, do not see exactly what is loaded on our aircraft, just get the numbers. 7 bags which weighed 50 pounds and should have been counted as 'double-weights' (ie, normal bags are counted as 25 pounds, doubles 50 pounds). This is the loaders responsibility. Almost all of the so called '25 pound bags) were deemed in excess of 25 pounds by tvc bag handler of 27 yrs experience. (Ie, above the average used for calculations). 15 so called 'carry-ONS,' 'rollaboard' types that did not fit in cabin were stowed aft, but accounted for on the load buildup as stowed in the cabin. The SF340 sat on its rear end after touchdown of mains due to an aft center of gravity which exceeded limits. The cause was a blatently misloaded aircraft which the flight crew had no idea about since all of the paperwork given to us showed us within center of gravity and weight limits for takeoff and landing.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF A SAAB 340 TEMPORARILY LOST CTL OF THE ACFT DURING TOUCHDOWN WHEN THE NOSEWHEEL WOULD NOT LOWER TO THE RWY FOR DIRECTIONAL STEERING UNTIL THE RPTR APPLIED MAX FORWARD YOKE CTL PRESSURE. THIS CONDITION WAS LATER DETERMINED TO BE CAUSED BY EXCESSIVE HVY BAGGAGE LOADED IN THE AFT CARGO COMPARTMENT AND NOT REFLECTED ON THE DISPATCH WT AND BAL FORM.

Narrative: THIS WAS A VERY STANDARD/NORMAL FLT UNTIL AFTER THE MAIN WHEELS TOUCHED ON LNDG. AT THIS TIME THE ACFT ASSUMED A MUCH HIGHER PITCH ANGLE (ENOUGH TO TOUCH THE TAIL), WITH THE MAIN WHEELS ROLLING DOWN THE RWY. MY INITIAL CTL INPUTS WERE RELAXATION OF THE YOKE (IE, YOKE FORWARD). THIS WOULD NORMALLY CAUSE THE NOSEWHEEL TO LOWER TOWARD THE GND. THIS ACFT, HOWEVER, DID NOT RESPOND NORMALLY AND MAINTAINED THIS VERY NOSE HIGH PITCH ATTITUDE. I THEN PUSHED THE YOKE FULLY FORWARD (IE, INTO THE INST PANEL) AND THE NOSE OF THE ACFT RELUCTANTLY LOWERED RESULTING IN NOSEWHEEL TOUCHDOWN. TOTAL TIME OF TAIL CONTACT WAS 2 SECONDS, ALTHOUGH IT IS HARD TO SAY EXACTLY AS THERE WERE NO PERCEPTIBLE SOUNDS IN THE COCKPIT. AFTER TAXI/SHUTDOWN, I IMMEDIATELY DEPLANED TO INSPECT THE TAIL (AT THIS POINT STILL NOT SURE IF WE HAD DEFINITELY HIT) AND NOTICED PAINT AND METAL WORN FROM THE TAILSTAND HOLDER AND AFT DORSAL FINS. I COMMANDED THE BAG HANDLER TO COUNT THE BAGS COMING OFF THE ACFT AND ALSO TAKE NOTE OF THE SIZE. HERE'S WHAT THEY FOUND: A TOTAL OF 52 BAGS, NOT 47 AS LISTED ON OUR DOCUMENTS. THE ORIGINATING BAG HANDLER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR AN ACCURATE COUNT. WE, AS PLTS, DO NOT SEE EXACTLY WHAT IS LOADED ON OUR ACFT, JUST GET THE NUMBERS. 7 BAGS WHICH WEIGHED 50 LBS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN COUNTED AS 'DOUBLE-WTS' (IE, NORMAL BAGS ARE COUNTED AS 25 LBS, DOUBLES 50 LBS). THIS IS THE LOADERS RESPONSIBILITY. ALMOST ALL OF THE SO CALLED '25 LB BAGS) WERE DEEMED IN EXCESS OF 25 LBS BY TVC BAG HANDLER OF 27 YRS EXPERIENCE. (IE, ABOVE THE AVERAGE USED FOR CALCULATIONS). 15 SO CALLED 'CARRY-ONS,' 'ROLLABOARD' TYPES THAT DID NOT FIT IN CABIN WERE STOWED AFT, BUT ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE LOAD BUILDUP AS STOWED IN THE CABIN. THE SF340 SAT ON ITS REAR END AFTER TOUCHDOWN OF MAINS DUE TO AN AFT CTR OF GRAVITY WHICH EXCEEDED LIMITS. THE CAUSE WAS A BLATENTLY MISLOADED ACFT WHICH THE FLC HAD NO IDEA ABOUT SINCE ALL OF THE PAPERWORK GIVEN TO US SHOWED US WITHIN CTR OF GRAVITY AND WT LIMITS FOR TKOF AND LNDG.

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.