Narrative:

After determining actual weight of aircraft to be 1100 pounds above landing weight, limited takeoff weight, (ie, maximum landing weight plus planned fuel burn en route) I advised the captain of this condition, and suggested to him that we burn off the excess 1100 pounds of fuel prior to brake release. His reaction was not only to disagree, saying such action was unnecessary, but that we needed to 'revise' the planned en route fuel burn. Having never flown any legs with this captain before, I was certainly confused by his remark. He further argued that this maximum landing weight on the load manifest was actually a weight value well below manufacturer's stated maximum landing weight. He further stated that overweight landing inspections are not even required when, due to operational events, the company mandated maximum landing weight was exceeded, provided the actual landing weight was below manufacturer's specification. For this reason he instructed me (most insistently) to amend the en route fuel burn to accommodate our fuel overage. For reasons known before (only!?) to him, he never called flight control to obtain an amended release. Flight was completed without operational incidents, and aircraft landed at company mandated landing weight limit.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A COMMERCIAL FIXED WING LGT WAS DISPATCHED 1100 LBS ABOVE WT LIMIT ON RELEASE BUT LANDED AT LNDG WT LIMIT.

Narrative: AFTER DETERMINING ACTUAL WT OF ACFT TO BE 1100 LBS ABOVE LNDG WT, LIMITED TKOF WT, (IE, MAX LNDG WT PLUS PLANNED FUEL BURN ENRTE) I ADVISED THE CAPT OF THIS CONDITION, AND SUGGESTED TO HIM THAT WE BURN OFF THE EXCESS 1100 LBS OF FUEL PRIOR TO BRAKE RELEASE. HIS REACTION WAS NOT ONLY TO DISAGREE, SAYING SUCH ACTION WAS UNNECESSARY, BUT THAT WE NEEDED TO 'REVISE' THE PLANNED ENRTE FUEL BURN. HAVING NEVER FLOWN ANY LEGS WITH THIS CAPT BEFORE, I WAS CERTAINLY CONFUSED BY HIS REMARK. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THIS MAX LNDG WT ON THE LOAD MANIFEST WAS ACTUALLY A WT VALUE WELL BELOW MANUFACTURER'S STATED MAX LNDG WT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT OVERWT LNDG INSPECTIONS ARE NOT EVEN REQUIRED WHEN, DUE TO OPERATIONAL EVENTS, THE COMPANY MANDATED MAX LNDG WT WAS EXCEEDED, PROVIDED THE ACTUAL LNDG WT WAS BELOW MANUFACTURER'S SPEC. FOR THIS REASON HE INSTRUCTED ME (MOST INSISTENTLY) TO AMEND THE ENRTE FUEL BURN TO ACCOMMODATE OUR FUEL OVERAGE. FOR REASONS KNOWN BEFORE (ONLY!?) TO HIM, HE NEVER CALLED FLT CTL TO OBTAIN AN AMENDED RELEASE. FLT WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT OPERATIONAL INCIDENTS, AND ACFT LANDED AT COMPANY MANDATED LNDG WT LIMIT.

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.