Narrative:

We were cleared for a visual approach to runway 22R at btr. Conditions were night, clear, wind 24 degrees 11 KTS, smooth, and dry runway. My first officer was the PF. She flew a normal approach with no difficulties. Aircraft weight was 900 pounds below maximum landing weight, however the center of gravity was at the absolute maximum aft legal limit. Upon touchdown at approximately vref -5 KTS the first officer could not get the nose to come down. We proceeded down the runway in a pitched up attitude for approximately 2 seconds at which time I added my assistance in providing full pitch down control pressure on the yoke. As the aircraft slowed, the nose pitched further and further up. As soon as I felt the nose moving up I applied a substantial amount of power to bring the nose down and took full control of the aircraft. Once power was applied, the nose came down to the runway and we were able to hold it there throughout the landing roll. However, prior to adding power to bring the nose down, the rear of the fuselage contacted the runway. On postflt we discovered minimal damage to the aircraft, consisting of scraped paint, bent tail stand insert and damaged rear aerodynamic strakes. Contributing factors and reasons: 1) possible cargo shift in-flight changing the center of gravity, and 2) lack of actual weight information. My company uses average weights for both passenger and cargo/luggage. I believe that in an aircraft the size of the saab, average weights often result in the aircraft exceeding maximum weight limits and center of gravity limitations, although on paper the aircraft is legal.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SF340 SCRAPES TAIL ON LNDG AT BTR.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 22R AT BTR. CONDITIONS WERE NIGHT, CLR, WIND 24 DEGS 11 KTS, SMOOTH, AND DRY RWY. MY FO WAS THE PF. SHE FLEW A NORMAL APCH WITH NO DIFFICULTIES. ACFT WT WAS 900 LBS BELOW MAX LNDG WT, HOWEVER THE CTR OF GRAVITY WAS AT THE ABSOLUTE MAX AFT LEGAL LIMIT. UPON TOUCHDOWN AT APPROX VREF -5 KTS THE FO COULD NOT GET THE NOSE TO COME DOWN. WE PROCEEDED DOWN THE RWY IN A PITCHED UP ATTITUDE FOR APPROX 2 SECONDS AT WHICH TIME I ADDED MY ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING FULL PITCH DOWN CTL PRESSURE ON THE YOKE. AS THE ACFT SLOWED, THE NOSE PITCHED FURTHER AND FURTHER UP. AS SOON AS I FELT THE NOSE MOVING UP I APPLIED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF PWR TO BRING THE NOSE DOWN AND TOOK FULL CTL OF THE ACFT. ONCE PWR WAS APPLIED, THE NOSE CAME DOWN TO THE RWY AND WE WERE ABLE TO HOLD IT THERE THROUGHOUT THE LNDG ROLL. HOWEVER, PRIOR TO ADDING PWR TO BRING THE NOSE DOWN, THE REAR OF THE FUSELAGE CONTACTED THE RWY. ON POSTFLT WE DISCOVERED MINIMAL DAMAGE TO THE ACFT, CONSISTING OF SCRAPED PAINT, BENT TAIL STAND INSERT AND DAMAGED REAR AERODYNAMIC STRAKES. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND REASONS: 1) POSSIBLE CARGO SHIFT INFLT CHANGING THE CTR OF GRAVITY, AND 2) LACK OF ACTUAL WT INFO. MY COMPANY USES AVERAGE WTS FOR BOTH PAX AND CARGO/LUGGAGE. I BELIEVE THAT IN AN ACFT THE SIZE OF THE SAAB, AVERAGE WTS OFTEN RESULT IN THE ACFT EXCEEDING MAX WT LIMITS AND CTR OF GRAVITY LIMITATIONS, ALTHOUGH ON PAPER THE ACFT IS LEGAL.

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.