Narrative:

Flying from ZZZ-ZZZ1 in a DHC8 300 series. The plane had the stick pusher MEL'd. MEL states rows 12 and 13 must be blocked for weight and balance. We had 22 passengers which put us in an ag load schedule. Min and maximum cargo weight adjustments had to be made in order to remain within the limits prescribed by the schedule. After 1 hour of computational adjustments (according to the load schedule) we were found to be in limits and flew to ZZZ1. The next day we were swapped into the same aircraft in ZZZ in the evening. We had the same amount of passenger which put us again in an ag load schedule. After 35 mins of computations it was determined that it is impossible to upload the plane in any configuration of passenger and cargo and remain within load schedule limits. Flight control was called and they were also unable to configure the plane using the published load schedule. They had to resort to using a computer for a precise loading configuration to remain within limits. I was extremely upset that the company had even published a load schedule for ag with the stick pusher MEL'd when they knew it was impossible in any configuration. They should have put on the schedule that in such a situation you must call flight control to perform the computations with a computer. We took a 1 hour delay because of trying to do something that was impossible. What is published on the load schedule for stick pusher MEL adjustments to remain in limits is impossible and erroneous information which leads to unnecessary delays in loading. Company should never have put out this load schedule if it can't work or should at least tell you to call dispatch in such a situation. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that according to the printed load schedule form it is impossible to come up with a passenger/cargo placement and load that is within cg limits when certain MEL restrictions and passenger numbers are used. Reporter advised that the company dispatch has a computer program that can accurately factor in exact figures for the moment and arm calculations for fuel, baggage, and passengers. Reporter stated that he felt that the company was remiss for not changing the load schedule form or immediately providing computer generated data when required by the load conditions in order to reduce delays caused by ineffective manual computations. Reporter stated that he felt that the computer generated load schedule is accurate and within cg limits and that the problem is an inadequate manual form. Reporter also stated that he believes that the solution would be to install ACARS in the aircraft.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DHC-8-300 FLT CREW EXPERIENCES DEP DELAYS DUE TO LIMITATIONS OF THE MANUAL LOAD SCHEDULE WORKSHEET.

Narrative: FLYING FROM ZZZ-ZZZ1 IN A DHC8 300 SERIES. THE PLANE HAD THE STICK PUSHER MEL'D. MEL STATES ROWS 12 AND 13 MUST BE BLOCKED FOR WT AND BALANCE. WE HAD 22 PASSENGERS WHICH PUT US IN AN AG LOAD SCHEDULE. MIN AND MAXIMUM CARGO WT ADJUSTMENTS HAD TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO REMAIN WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY THE SCHEDULE. AFTER 1 HR OF COMPUTATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS (ACCORDING TO THE LOAD SCHEDULE) WE WERE FOUND TO BE IN LIMITS AND FLEW TO ZZZ1. THE NEXT DAY WE WERE SWAPPED INTO THE SAME ACFT IN ZZZ IN THE EVENING. WE HAD THE SAME AMOUNT OF PAX WHICH PUT US AGAIN IN AN AG LOAD SCHEDULE. AFTER 35 MINS OF COMPUTATIONS IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UPLOAD THE PLANE IN ANY CONFIGURATION OF PAX AND CARGO AND REMAIN WITHIN LOAD SCHEDULE LIMITS. FLT CTL WAS CALLED AND THEY WERE ALSO UNABLE TO CONFIGURE THE PLANE USING THE PUBLISHED LOAD SCHEDULE. THEY HAD TO RESORT TO USING A COMPUTER FOR A PRECISE LOADING CONFIGURATION TO REMAIN WITHIN LIMITS. I WAS EXTREMELY UPSET THAT THE COMPANY HAD EVEN PUBLISHED A LOAD SCHEDULE FOR AG WITH THE STICK PUSHER MEL'D WHEN THEY KNEW IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE IN ANY CONFIGURATION. THEY SHOULD HAVE PUT ON THE SCHEDULE THAT IN SUCH A SIT YOU MUST CALL FLT CTL TO PERFORM THE COMPUTATIONS WITH A COMPUTER. WE TOOK A 1 HR DELAY BECAUSE OF TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE. WHAT IS PUBLISHED ON THE LOAD SCHEDULE FOR STICK PUSHER MEL ADJUSTMENTS TO REMAIN IN LIMITS IS IMPOSSIBLE AND ERRONEOUS INFO WHICH LEADS TO UNNECESSARY DELAYS IN LOADING. COMPANY SHOULD NEVER HAVE PUT OUT THIS LOAD SCHEDULE IF IT CAN'T WORK OR SHOULD AT LEAST TELL YOU TO CALL DISPATCH IN SUCH A SIT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT ACCORDING TO THE PRINTED LOAD SCHEDULE FORM IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO COME UP WITH A PAX/CARGO PLACEMENT AND LOAD THAT IS WITHIN CG LIMITS WHEN CERTAIN MEL RESTRICTIONS AND PAX NUMBERS ARE USED. RPTR ADVISED THAT THE COMPANY DISPATCH HAS A COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT CAN ACCURATELY FACTOR IN EXACT FIGURES FOR THE MOMENT AND ARM CALCULATIONS FOR FUEL, BAGGAGE, AND PASSENGERS. RPTR STATED THAT HE FELT THAT THE COMPANY WAS REMISS FOR NOT CHANGING THE LOAD SCHEDULE FORM OR IMMEDIATELY PROVIDING COMPUTER GENERATED DATA WHEN REQUIRED BY THE LOAD CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE DELAYS CAUSED BY INEFFECTIVE MANUAL COMPUTATIONS. RPTR STATED THAT HE FELT THAT THE COMPUTER GENERATED LOAD SCHEDULE IS ACCURATE AND WITHIN CG LIMITS AND THAT THE PROB IS AN INADEQUATE MANUAL FORM. RPTR ALSO STATED THAT HE BELIEVES THAT THE SOLUTION WOULD BE TO INSTALL ACARS IN THE ACFT.

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.