Narrative:

Upon arrival at eyw; the ground crew approached us asking how many people and bags we could take back to fll. After reviewing the takeoff and landing report; the captain and I agreed that we could take a full load. We boarded and taxied to runway 9. A static takeoff was performed and I called out 'V1; rotate' at approximately the touchdown zone of runway 27. A normal rotation was achieved. I estimate we cleared the small (50 ft?) hill at the end of the runway by 100-200 ft. This activated the GPWS warning; 'terrain; terrain!' the captain pulled back as trained and got a momentary stick shaker. We continued a normal climb in VFR conditions. In cruise flight; we realized our big mistake. Each of us had about 1 yr experience on the airplane; typically in and out of large airports with long runways. I would estimate that 99.9% of our takeoffs are limited by the structure of the aircraft (maximum takeoff weight and maximum takeoff weight considering burn and maximum landing weight). This limit is printed in the takeoff and landing report as -- maximum flight plan takeoff weight. This number considers all flight planning limits except the maximum runway takeoff weight. This number (maximum runway takeoff weight) considers factors such as flap setting; outside air temperature; altimeter settings; wind; icing; and runway length to ensure a takeoff that complies with the required climb gradient and other far's. This takeoff was limited by the maximum runway takeoff weight. The runway is only 4801 ft. We had an exceptionally long takeoff roll because our actual weight was much greater than the maximum runway takeoff weight. A contributing factor to this event was the terminology in our poh. With the term 'maximum flight plan takeoff weight;' one can easily be led to believe that runway length has been considered. I learned 2 very important lessons: 1) always listen to that voice in your head screaming; 'something is not right!' I commented at the gate about the unusual concerns of the ground crew. It was really obvious that usually cannot load a CRJ200 to the maximum and they often had to bump passenger to the next flight. This was the big hint that we neglected. 2) it is extremely easy to become complacent. We are rarely limited by maximum runway takeoff weight; but it must be considered on every takeoff. I guarantee that I will personally ensure that this is done on all of my future takeoffs.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ200 FLT CREW MISCALCULATES MAX ALLOWABLE TKOF WT FROM EYW.

Narrative: UPON ARR AT EYW; THE GND CREW APCHED US ASKING HOW MANY PEOPLE AND BAGS WE COULD TAKE BACK TO FLL. AFTER REVIEWING THE TKOF AND LNDG RPT; THE CAPT AND I AGREED THAT WE COULD TAKE A FULL LOAD. WE BOARDED AND TAXIED TO RWY 9. A STATIC TKOF WAS PERFORMED AND I CALLED OUT 'V1; ROTATE' AT APPROX THE TOUCHDOWN ZONE OF RWY 27. A NORMAL ROTATION WAS ACHIEVED. I ESTIMATE WE CLRED THE SMALL (50 FT?) HILL AT THE END OF THE RWY BY 100-200 FT. THIS ACTIVATED THE GPWS WARNING; 'TERRAIN; TERRAIN!' THE CAPT PULLED BACK AS TRAINED AND GOT A MOMENTARY STICK SHAKER. WE CONTINUED A NORMAL CLB IN VFR CONDITIONS. IN CRUISE FLT; WE REALIZED OUR BIG MISTAKE. EACH OF US HAD ABOUT 1 YR EXPERIENCE ON THE AIRPLANE; TYPICALLY IN AND OUT OF LARGE ARPTS WITH LONG RWYS. I WOULD ESTIMATE THAT 99.9% OF OUR TKOFS ARE LIMITED BY THE STRUCTURE OF THE ACFT (MAX TKOF WT AND MAX TKOF WT CONSIDERING BURN AND MAX LNDG WT). THIS LIMIT IS PRINTED IN THE TKOF AND LNDG RPT AS -- MAX FLT PLAN TKOF WT. THIS NUMBER CONSIDERS ALL FLT PLANNING LIMITS EXCEPT THE MAX RWY TKOF WT. THIS NUMBER (MAX RWY TKOF WT) CONSIDERS FACTORS SUCH AS FLAP SETTING; OUTSIDE AIR TEMP; ALTIMETER SETTINGS; WIND; ICING; AND RWY LENGTH TO ENSURE A TKOF THAT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIRED CLB GRADIENT AND OTHER FAR'S. THIS TKOF WAS LIMITED BY THE MAX RWY TKOF WT. THE RWY IS ONLY 4801 FT. WE HAD AN EXCEPTIONALLY LONG TKOF ROLL BECAUSE OUR ACTUAL WT WAS MUCH GREATER THAN THE MAX RWY TKOF WT. A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THIS EVENT WAS THE TERMINOLOGY IN OUR POH. WITH THE TERM 'MAX FLT PLAN TKOF WT;' ONE CAN EASILY BE LED TO BELIEVE THAT RWY LENGTH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. I LEARNED 2 VERY IMPORTANT LESSONS: 1) ALWAYS LISTEN TO THAT VOICE IN YOUR HEAD SCREAMING; 'SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT!' I COMMENTED AT THE GATE ABOUT THE UNUSUAL CONCERNS OF THE GND CREW. IT WAS REALLY OBVIOUS THAT USUALLY CANNOT LOAD A CRJ200 TO THE MAX AND THEY OFTEN HAD TO BUMP PAX TO THE NEXT FLT. THIS WAS THE BIG HINT THAT WE NEGLECTED. 2) IT IS EXTREMELY EASY TO BECOME COMPLACENT. WE ARE RARELY LIMITED BY MAX RWY TKOF WT; BUT IT MUST BE CONSIDERED ON EVERY TKOF. I GUARANTEE THAT I WILL PERSONALLY ENSURE THAT THIS IS DONE ON ALL OF MY FUTURE TKOFS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.