MLG FLC ALLEGEDLY TOOK OFF WITH ACFT OVERWT FOR THE RWY USED.

Narrative

COMPANY CHANGED FROM FLC DOING WT AND BAL COMPUTATIONS TO A COMPUTER GENERATED WT AND BAL CLOSEOUT. FLCS WERE ALLOWED TO OVERRIDE COMPUTER CLOSEOUT IF A CONFLICT WAS NOTED. AFTER USING THE NEW SYS FOR APPROX 2 MONTHS WITH NO PROBLEMS I WAS APCHED BY A MEMBER OF OPS ON THE NIGHT OF OCT/XX/91 DURING A QUICK TURN FROM CHICAGO TO NEW YORK. HE STATED THAT THE COMPUTER WT AND BAL WAS IN ERROR AND REQUESTED THAT I ALLOW THE MANUAL COMPUTATIONS WHICH HE HAD COMPLETED TO BE USED. I AGREED AND USED THE MANUAL WT AND BAL TO BE USED WHICH ALLOWED FOR MORE CARGO TO BE LOADED ON THE FLT. THE NEXT DAY A CLOSE REVIEW OF THE PAPERWORK TO TRY TO UNCOVER THE CONFLICT BTWN THE MANUAL SYS AND THE COMPUTER SYS SHOWED THAT THE OPS PERSON HAD USED THE WRONG ACFT EMPTY WT ON THE MANUAL CLOSEOUT FORM WITH A DIFFERENT N NUMBER SHOWN. THIS RESULTED IN AN OVERWT TKOF FOR THE RWY USED. A CHANGE IN COMPANY PROCS SO AS TO ONLY HAVE 1 SYS IN USE OR COLOR CODED FORMS FOR DIFFERENT ACFT WHEN USING THE MANUAL SYS COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS EVENT.