Narrative:

Once again; inaccurate baggage weight and passenger weights put us over the maximum capacity of the MD83. If we lose an engine under these conditions; the aircraft manufacturer does not guarantee the plane will fly. It doesn't matter how good the pilots are; gravity will win over aerodynamics. We will have a hull loss; a lot of people will die; and our company will be at risk of economic survival. Work that into your cost benefit analysis computation. Once again 'speed low' was on in climb out up to 190 KTS; alpha speed did not extinguish until 264 KTS with flaps and slats retracted. Look at the speed cards; we were in excess of 160000 pounds by far. My guess was 164000-166000 pounds. I took 3 steady state cruise parameter readings at flight levels FL280; FL300; and FL320; and when compared to the aom performance/cruise section they all show the same bias towards a heavier weight than what was provided us on paper. My estimate of our overweight condition was verified by use of angle of attack; speed low; alpha speed and 'alpha floor;' and the empirical real time readings that I have provided you. Using the aom climb/cruise/descent data with use of autothrottle system to prove our landing speed showed us that our landing weight was over the limit as well. Get the scale out and put the bags on it. Surely we have the ability to weigh luggage at O'hare. The next day's flight mmsd-ord was still over the paper weight but by only 4000-5000 pounds. Your job should be to agree that FAA 8300.112 is far from adequate by ignoring the american waistline and vacation packing habits. We cannot legislate or violate mr newton's and mr bernoulli's laws. They are immutable and should be treated as such. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter advised he had taken photo documentation of the anomalous airspeed and angle of attack indications/warnings and forwarded them to his air carrier flight operations department. They responded very positively and are actively pursuing means to resolve the problem even going so far as to actually weigh bags on the type of rtes in question. Reporter was impressed that less than a week after his initial reports; the company had provided mmsd with legitimate steel scales for weighing baggage vice the small bathroom type previously used. Finally; he noted that provisions exist for identing bags that 'appear' to exceed the 30 pound standard in which case they are marked with an orange 'heavy' tag. The reporter stated the achilles heel of this procedure is that there is no requirement to weigh bags and doing so is at the discretion of the agent checking in the passenger.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD80 CAPT ADVISES ACFT ANGLE OF ATTACK SYS SUGGEST ACFT WT IN EXCESS OF LEGAL MAXIMUMS.

Narrative: ONCE AGAIN; INACCURATE BAGGAGE WT AND PAX WEIGHTS PUT US OVER THE MAX CAPACITY OF THE MD83. IF WE LOSE AN ENG UNDER THESE CONDITIONS; THE ACFT MANUFACTURER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE PLANE WILL FLY. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW GOOD THE PLTS ARE; GRAVITY WILL WIN OVER AERODYNAMICS. WE WILL HAVE A HULL LOSS; A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL DIE; AND OUR COMPANY WILL BE AT RISK OF ECONOMIC SURVIVAL. WORK THAT INTO YOUR COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS COMPUTATION. ONCE AGAIN 'SPD LOW' WAS ON IN CLBOUT UP TO 190 KTS; ALPHA SPD DID NOT EXTINGUISH UNTIL 264 KTS WITH FLAPS AND SLATS RETRACTED. LOOK AT THE SPD CARDS; WE WERE IN EXCESS OF 160000 LBS BY FAR. MY GUESS WAS 164000-166000 LBS. I TOOK 3 STEADY STATE CRUISE PARAMETER READINGS AT FLT LEVELS FL280; FL300; AND FL320; AND WHEN COMPARED TO THE AOM PERFORMANCE/CRUISE SECTION THEY ALL SHOW THE SAME BIAS TOWARDS A HEAVIER WT THAN WHAT WAS PROVIDED US ON PAPER. MY ESTIMATE OF OUR OVERWT CONDITION WAS VERIFIED BY USE OF ANGLE OF ATTACK; SPD LOW; ALPHA SPD AND 'ALPHA FLOOR;' AND THE EMPIRICAL REAL TIME READINGS THAT I HAVE PROVIDED YOU. USING THE AOM CLB/CRUISE/DSCNT DATA WITH USE OF AUTOTHROTTLE SYS TO PROVE OUR LNDG SPD SHOWED US THAT OUR LNDG WT WAS OVER THE LIMIT AS WELL. GET THE SCALE OUT AND PUT THE BAGS ON IT. SURELY WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO WEIGH LUGGAGE AT O'HARE. THE NEXT DAY'S FLT MMSD-ORD WAS STILL OVER THE PAPER WT BUT BY ONLY 4000-5000 LBS. YOUR JOB SHOULD BE TO AGREE THAT FAA 8300.112 IS FAR FROM ADEQUATE BY IGNORING THE AMERICAN WAISTLINE AND VACATION PACKING HABITS. WE CANNOT LEGISLATE OR VIOLATE MR NEWTON'S AND MR BERNOULLI'S LAWS. THEY ARE IMMUTABLE AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR ADVISED HE HAD TAKEN PHOTO DOCUMENTATION OF THE ANOMALOUS AIRSPD AND ANGLE OF ATTACK INDICATIONS/WARNINGS AND FORWARDED THEM TO HIS ACR FLT OPS DEPT. THEY RESPONDED VERY POSITIVELY AND ARE ACTIVELY PURSUING MEANS TO RESOLVE THE PROB EVEN GOING SO FAR AS TO ACTUALLY WEIGH BAGS ON THE TYPE OF RTES IN QUESTION. RPTR WAS IMPRESSED THAT LESS THAN A WK AFTER HIS INITIAL RPTS; THE COMPANY HAD PROVIDED MMSD WITH LEGITIMATE STEEL SCALES FOR WEIGHING BAGGAGE VICE THE SMALL BATHROOM TYPE PREVIOUSLY USED. FINALLY; HE NOTED THAT PROVISIONS EXIST FOR IDENTING BAGS THAT 'APPEAR' TO EXCEED THE 30 LB STANDARD IN WHICH CASE THEY ARE MARKED WITH AN ORANGE 'HVY' TAG. THE RPTR STATED THE ACHILLES HEEL OF THIS PROC IS THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO WEIGH BAGS AND DOING SO IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE AGENT CHKING IN THE PAX.

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.