Narrative:

Problem: questionable takeoff performance data. During preflight, I brought to the captain's attention a NOTAM regarding our takeoff runway, last 3872 ft closed/10700 ft available. This situation was not addressed on our takeoff performance data. The captain insisted that this was in fact incorporated into the available takeoff data. I pointed out to him that this data referenced a runway available length of over 14000 ft. I asked if I could send dispatch a message requesting updated numbers. He said it was not necessary, but I could if I wanted to and he further insisted that our data was valid. I sent the message, but never received the information. The captain was clear that he would not take a delay for this and referenced data for the same runway opposite direction with 10700 ft available and showed at 26000 pound performance margin. I informed him that this was only valid if the runway had no grade. Fortunately, jfk is quite level. I further informed him that modification to our existing data showed us illegal and offered to calculate the data manually. By now, we were #1 for takeoff and he had already emphasized that he would not accept a delay. He further referenced our existing data and insisted it was adequate. Although the operation was very safe and a very large performance margin existed (over 25000 pounds) the means of quantifying this was not according to standard methods. Although this is a very minor technicality, it is still in contradiction to SOP and represents a CRM failure. I was insistent as I could be without creating a negative environment. If this were a critical safety issue, I would have been even more directive. It would be useful to have an FAA procedure such as CRM 'code word' such as the military's 'time-out' to stop operation and resolve conflict.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757-200 FO CANNOT CONVINCE THE PIC ON TAXI OUT THAT NEW PERFORMANCE DATA MUST BE OBTAINED FOR A RWY LENGTH AVAILABLE ADJUSTMENT AT JFK, NY.

Narrative: PROB: QUESTIONABLE TKOF PERFORMANCE DATA. DURING PREFLT, I BROUGHT TO THE CAPT'S ATTN A NOTAM REGARDING OUR TKOF RWY, LAST 3872 FT CLOSED/10700 FT AVAILABLE. THIS SIT WAS NOT ADDRESSED ON OUR TKOF PERFORMANCE DATA. THE CAPT INSISTED THAT THIS WAS IN FACT INCORPORATED INTO THE AVAILABLE TKOF DATA. I POINTED OUT TO HIM THAT THIS DATA REFED A RWY AVAILABLE LENGTH OF OVER 14000 FT. I ASKED IF I COULD SEND DISPATCH A MESSAGE REQUESTING UPDATED NUMBERS. HE SAID IT WAS NOT NECESSARY, BUT I COULD IF I WANTED TO AND HE FURTHER INSISTED THAT OUR DATA WAS VALID. I SENT THE MESSAGE, BUT NEVER RECEIVED THE INFO. THE CAPT WAS CLR THAT HE WOULD NOT TAKE A DELAY FOR THIS AND REFED DATA FOR THE SAME RWY OPPOSITE DIRECTION WITH 10700 FT AVAILABLE AND SHOWED AT 26000 LB PERFORMANCE MARGIN. I INFORMED HIM THAT THIS WAS ONLY VALID IF THE RWY HAD NO GRADE. FORTUNATELY, JFK IS QUITE LEVEL. I FURTHER INFORMED HIM THAT MODIFICATION TO OUR EXISTING DATA SHOWED US ILLEGAL AND OFFERED TO CALCULATE THE DATA MANUALLY. BY NOW, WE WERE #1 FOR TKOF AND HE HAD ALREADY EMPHASIZED THAT HE WOULD NOT ACCEPT A DELAY. HE FURTHER REFED OUR EXISTING DATA AND INSISTED IT WAS ADEQUATE. ALTHOUGH THE OP WAS VERY SAFE AND A VERY LARGE PERFORMANCE MARGIN EXISTED (OVER 25000 LBS) THE MEANS OF QUANTIFYING THIS WAS NOT ACCORDING TO STANDARD METHODS. ALTHOUGH THIS IS A VERY MINOR TECHNICALITY, IT IS STILL IN CONTRADICTION TO SOP AND REPRESENTS A CRM FAILURE. I WAS INSISTENT AS I COULD BE WITHOUT CREATING A NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENT. IF THIS WERE A CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE, I WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN MORE DIRECTIVE. IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE AN FAA PROC SUCH AS CRM 'CODE WORD' SUCH AS THE MIL'S 'TIME-OUT' TO STOP OP AND RESOLVE CONFLICT.

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.