Narrative:

I noted large oversize bags and 1 case with heavy markings on bag cart on the way to the aircraft at bgr. When the agent gave the crew the load sheet, there were only standard checked bags indicated. I questioned the agent about the issue. The agent indicated they were all standard bags. I went out to the cargo hold, pointed out a case with heavy markings, and asked to have it checked. Ramp agent refused and told me to do it myself. Station personnel indicated they determine bag weights. I asked to see station manual on weight and balance operations, and pointed out example photos to give guidance to ramp personnel. Agent then remembered that 1 bag was 72 pounds, and recalculated the load sheet. Incurred a 5 min delay. I (captain) was removed from flight status after blocking in at ZZZ. I was reinstated and then removed from flight status the following day. I have to report to vice president of flight operations over the matter. Supplemental information from acn 575963: the original load stated 5 carryon and 29 standard bags. Revised load sheet indicated 5 carryon, 28 standard, and 1 at 72 pounds. Offload at ZZZ was 7 carryon, 24 standard, and 4 oversized bags. Unable to have bag with heavy markings weighed in the time available. 1 box of aog in the hold was not marked on either sheet. Bgr agents indicate they lift bags to determine weight criteria. Manual indicated size as a factor to determine average weights. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he had noticed baggage weight discrepancies at bgr on previous occasions and, therefore, was checking the load carefully. Reporter estimates that the baggage load on this flight could have been off, but that the weight and balance was within limits, and there were no adverse flight characteristics noted. Reporter advised that he is currently off of flight status for matters unrelated to the baggage loading incident, and that he is considering resigning from the company. Reporter stated that the company has indicated that he could not be faulted for questioning the load or delaying the departure.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMJ CAPT OBSERVES BAGGAGE LOADING DISCREPANCIES AT BGR.

Narrative: I NOTED LARGE OVERSIZE BAGS AND 1 CASE WITH HEAVY MARKINGS ON BAG CART ON THE WAY TO THE ACFT AT BGR. WHEN THE AGENT GAVE THE CREW THE LOAD SHEET, THERE WERE ONLY STANDARD CHKED BAGS INDICATED. I QUESTIONED THE AGENT ABOUT THE ISSUE. THE AGENT INDICATED THEY WERE ALL STANDARD BAGS. I WENT OUT TO THE CARGO HOLD, POINTED OUT A CASE WITH HEAVY MARKINGS, AND ASKED TO HAVE IT CHKED. RAMP AGENT REFUSED AND TOLD ME TO DO IT MYSELF. STATION PERSONNEL INDICATED THEY DETERMINE BAG WTS. I ASKED TO SEE STATION MANUAL ON WT AND BAL OPS, AND POINTED OUT EXAMPLE PHOTOS TO GIVE GUIDANCE TO RAMP PERSONNEL. AGENT THEN REMEMBERED THAT 1 BAG WAS 72 LBS, AND RECALCULATED THE LOAD SHEET. INCURRED A 5 MIN DELAY. I (CAPT) WAS REMOVED FROM FLT STATUS AFTER BLOCKING IN AT ZZZ. I WAS REINSTATED AND THEN REMOVED FROM FLT STATUS THE FOLLOWING DAY. I HAVE TO RPT TO VICE PRESIDENT OF FLT OPS OVER THE MATTER. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 575963: THE ORIGINAL LOAD STATED 5 CARRYON AND 29 STANDARD BAGS. REVISED LOAD SHEET INDICATED 5 CARRYON, 28 STANDARD, AND 1 AT 72 LBS. OFFLOAD AT ZZZ WAS 7 CARRYON, 24 STANDARD, AND 4 OVERSIZED BAGS. UNABLE TO HAVE BAG WITH HEAVY MARKINGS WEIGHED IN THE TIME AVAILABLE. 1 BOX OF AOG IN THE HOLD WAS NOT MARKED ON EITHER SHEET. BGR AGENTS INDICATE THEY LIFT BAGS TO DETERMINE WT CRITERIA. MANUAL INDICATED SIZE AS A FACTOR TO DETERMINE AVERAGE WTS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE HAD NOTICED BAGGAGE WT DISCREPANCIES AT BGR ON PREVIOUS OCCASIONS AND, THEREFORE, WAS CHKING THE LOAD CAREFULLY. RPTR ESTIMATES THAT THE BAGGAGE LOAD ON THIS FLT COULD HAVE BEEN OFF, BUT THAT THE WT AND BAL WAS WITHIN LIMITS, AND THERE WERE NO ADVERSE FLT CHARACTERISTICS NOTED. RPTR ADVISED THAT HE IS CURRENTLY OFF OF FLT STATUS FOR MATTERS UNRELATED TO THE BAGGAGE LOADING INCIDENT, AND THAT HE IS CONSIDERING RESIGNING FROM THE COMPANY. RPTR STATED THAT THE COMPANY HAS INDICATED THAT HE COULD NOT BE FAULTED FOR QUESTIONING THE LOAD OR DELAYING THE DEP.

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.