THE TKOF PERFORMANCE NUMBERS WERE DELAYED UNTIL JUST PRIOR TO TKOF. THE NUMBERS PROVIDED DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE RWY USED. THE RWY 34 AT PVD WAS INADEQUATE FOR THE TKOF AS LOADED.

Narrative

HOW PROB AROSE: WE HAD A TKOF DEP WINDOW WE WERE APCHING. OPS WAS SLOW IN GETTING NUMBERS. FO CALLED ASKING FOR RWY 34; ATO WITH 97 PAX. THE NUMBERS WERE GIVEN OVER RADIO; AND FOLLOWED QUICKLY ON ACARS. SINCE WE ASKED FOR RWY 34 NUMBERS; WE BELIEVED WE WERE OK FOR THAT RWY WHEN THEY GAVE US NUMBERS -- WE MUST HAVE MISSED THE RWY DESIGNATION ON ACARS NUMBERS. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: TRYING TO MEET A TKOF WINDOW; VERY LATE NUMBERS; MISUNDERSTANDING THE ORAL NUMBERS WERE NOT FOR OUR RWY OF INTENDED USE. NOT BEING ABLE TO RUN BEFORE TKOF CHKLIST BEFORE GETTING NUMBERS ADDED TO THE PROB. HOW DISCOVERED: OPS CALLED CHIEF PLT'S OFFICE; AND FLT MGR NOTIFIED US NEXT DAY. CORRECTIVE ACTION: GET NUMBERS OUT QUICKER. VERIFY WITH FLC WHAT INTENDED RWY WILL BE. SEND NUMBERS FOR ALL ACTIVE RWYS EVEN IF NOT ALLOWABLE -- THEN FLC MUST MAKE A CHOICE; RATHER THAN ASSUMING THE ONE SET OF NUMBERS IS FOR YOUR INTENDED TKOF RWY. PERCEPTIONS; JUDGEMENT; DECISIONS: WE WERE VERY CONCERNED WITH MAKING THE CORRECT ATO PROC FOR TKOF AND FINISHING THE CHKLIST AND MAKING OUR 'WINDOW' FOR TKOF; WE JUST NEVER NOTICED THE NUMBERS WERE FOR A DIFFERENT RWY.