37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 591018 |
Time | |
Date | 200308 |
Day | Thu |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : msp.airport |
State Reference | MN |
Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | B737-800 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | ground : parked ground : preflight |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : flight engineer pilot : cfi pilot : atp |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 11500 flight time type : 1000 |
ASRS Report | 591018 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp pilot : commercial pilot : flight engineer pilot : multi engine pilot : cfi pilot : instrument |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 18500 flight time type : 800 |
ASRS Report | 591355 |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : company policies non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa other flight crewb |
Consequence | other |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | FAA Company Flight Crew Human Performance |
Primary Problem | Company |
Narrative:
Our weight and balance/performance computations are performed in the cockpit on a laptop computer with 'onboard performance system' software installed in it. On the date above, I was not able to boot up the computer as it was malfunctioning. I radioed maintenance and they brought another computer to the aircraft. I booted it up and completed our calculations, and we pressed on. Just prior to the third flight of the day, I realized that I had not set our aircraft number into the computer and that we had been performing our calculations with another aircraft number set. Thus, the basic operating weight and center of gravity envelope were slightly different and the results of our calculations were a bit off. The print-out of our calculations showed the wrong aircraft listed as set. In comparing the 2 aircraft, I found that the aircraft we were operating was 382 pounds heavier than the aircraft used in our computations. No maximum certificated weight limitations had been exceeded, but reduced/derated takeoff thrust calculations may have been just a bit off. The 'onboard performance system' software provides a pop-up window which asks the operator to click yes or no to the aircraft number currently set. It is very easy to blow through this by simply clicking 'yes' as I did because each laptop computer stays with its particular aircraft, charging in its own docking station in the cockpit. There is no reason to suspect that the aircraft number set would be anything different than the aircraft the computer is in. We perform thousands of these calculations each year, each with many data inputs and variables, and must perform them quickly so as to maintain schedule. My recommendation would be to alter the software so that the operator must positively select the particular aircraft number with each calculation as appropriate rather than just clicking 'yes' to the aircraft number carried through from previous use.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B737-800 CREW HAD ERRONEOUS WT AND BAL CALCULATIONS AFTER A REPLACEMENT LAPTOP WT AND BAL COMPUTER WAS NOT INITIALIZED PROPERLY.
Narrative: OUR WT AND BAL/PERFORMANCE COMPUTATIONS ARE PERFORMED IN THE COCKPIT ON A LAPTOP COMPUTER WITH 'ONBOARD PERFORMANCE SYS' SOFTWARE INSTALLED IN IT. ON THE DATE ABOVE, I WAS NOT ABLE TO BOOT UP THE COMPUTER AS IT WAS MALFUNCTIONING. I RADIOED MAINT AND THEY BROUGHT ANOTHER COMPUTER TO THE ACFT. I BOOTED IT UP AND COMPLETED OUR CALCULATIONS, AND WE PRESSED ON. JUST PRIOR TO THE THIRD FLT OF THE DAY, I REALIZED THAT I HAD NOT SET OUR ACFT NUMBER INTO THE COMPUTER AND THAT WE HAD BEEN PERFORMING OUR CALCULATIONS WITH ANOTHER ACFT NUMBER SET. THUS, THE BASIC OPERATING WT AND CTR OF GRAVITY ENVELOPE WERE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AND THE RESULTS OF OUR CALCULATIONS WERE A BIT OFF. THE PRINT-OUT OF OUR CALCULATIONS SHOWED THE WRONG ACFT LISTED AS SET. IN COMPARING THE 2 ACFT, I FOUND THAT THE ACFT WE WERE OPERATING WAS 382 LBS HEAVIER THAN THE ACFT USED IN OUR COMPUTATIONS. NO MAX CERTIFICATED WT LIMITATIONS HAD BEEN EXCEEDED, BUT REDUCED/DERATED TKOF THRUST CALCULATIONS MAY HAVE BEEN JUST A BIT OFF. THE 'ONBOARD PERFORMANCE SYS' SOFTWARE PROVIDES A POP-UP WINDOW WHICH ASKS THE OPERATOR TO CLICK YES OR NO TO THE ACFT NUMBER CURRENTLY SET. IT IS VERY EASY TO BLOW THROUGH THIS BY SIMPLY CLICKING 'YES' AS I DID BECAUSE EACH LAPTOP COMPUTER STAYS WITH ITS PARTICULAR ACFT, CHARGING IN ITS OWN DOCKING STATION IN THE COCKPIT. THERE IS NO REASON TO SUSPECT THAT THE ACFT NUMBER SET WOULD BE ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN THE ACFT THE COMPUTER IS IN. WE PERFORM THOUSANDS OF THESE CALCULATIONS EACH YEAR, EACH WITH MANY DATA INPUTS AND VARIABLES, AND MUST PERFORM THEM QUICKLY SO AS TO MAINTAIN SCHEDULE. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO ALTER THE SOFTWARE SO THAT THE OPERATOR MUST POSITIVELY SELECT THE PARTICULAR ACFT NUMBER WITH EACH CALCULATION AS APPROPRIATE RATHER THAN JUST CLICKING 'YES' TO THE ACFT NUMBER CARRIED THROUGH FROM PREVIOUS USE.
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.