Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: After initial ACARS weight and balance was received; the aircraft required 500 LBS of sand for ballast. We advised the push back driver who was also the agent responsible for the cargo loading as his name and signature was on the weight and balance handed to us. The bag information on the weight and balance was 19 Standard; 0 Heavy; 21 Pink tags. After we closed the door and waited for our ballast to arrive the Agent advised us of 4 additional bags being added to the bin; one of which was a heavy. We amended the amount to ballast needed and continued to wait for that to arrive. Shortly after that the Agent told us that 3 of the 4 bags that were added were added in error and were removed for the aircraft. We again re-entered the baggage numbers into ACARS and generated a new ballast number of 450 LBS. Due to the high number of amendments to the baggage numbers I asked what the Agent had as a baggage number to cross check against our numbers. He reported 47 total bags and 1 heavy 450 LBS of ballast. Our numbers had indicated the number should have been 19 Standard; 1 heavy; 21 pink tags and 450 LBS of ballast. I informed the Agent that the numbers did not match and he rechecked coming back with another incorrect baggage number. At this point our confidence had waned and the First Officer went back to count the bags himself. He reported the baggage number as 25 standard; 1 heavy; 20 pink tags and 100 LBS of ballast. This would have resulted in us attempting a takeoff with a trim position based on approximately 600 LBS more then was actually in the cargo bin. When we the First Officer asked where the sand bags were he told me that the agent shrugged and said he didn't know. The crew has no way of verifying that the correct number of bags are being loaded into the aircraft other then taking the agents word. The ground crew was attempting a push back with the aircraft grossly out of balance. The company must put in place a more responsible baggage handling policy for the ramp personal that contains a checks and balance system such as cross referencing every weight and balance with what is actually taken off the aircraft at the destinations. Furthermore agent accountability must be required and the consequences of their actions should be made apparent. This level of incompetence boarders on being criminally negligent and the level of apathy when the discrepancy was brought to the Loading Agent's attention is disappointing.




Synopsis: A CRJ200 Agent incorrectly stated the number of bags; their location and the amount of ballast actually loaded so that the aircraft takeoff trim would have been dangerously in error had the flight crew not caught the mistake.