Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Communication Breakdown; Workload
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
General None Reported / Taken
Aircraft; Human Factors
Flight departed in violation of MEL. Center fuel (structural check) plus ZFW exceeded maximum allowable ZFW.Weather was Low IFR with rain negatively impacting arrivals and departures. Gate Hold procedures were in effect. At pushback; ramp stated taxi times averaged :30 minutes. Flight initially taxied using RLS 01 with legal fuel load including :45 taxi fuel. Single engine taxi procedures were used. Ground estimated we were number 25 for departure so we shutdown. Our initial route was stopped for weather; received reroute that was longer distance and resulting REMF (Remaining Fuel at Touchdown) was under :60. Called Dispatch to discuss Releasing Short and seeking airborne return to original route once clear of weather instead of returning to gate for additional fuel. Decision was made to return and add fuel. We had been off the gate for just over 1 hour.Upon return to gate; we were advised boarding door would be opened to comply with regulations. About :45 minutes elapsed before refueling started. RLS03 Plan Gate fuel was 25.3. Fueled to 28.5/Fuel sheet called for 28.4. We received updated Final Weights showing TOW CHG +2697 CALL [dispatch] also 8200 LB SC FUEL INC.  Sent Dispatch ACARS: RLS3 shows 25.3/FOB 28.2/Are we OK to continue. Received ACARS: Good to continue. RLS 4 will be ready in a moment. Simultaneously received ATC reroute back onto Original RLS01 route(shorter routing). We reprogrammed FMC and satisfied that we were OK to continue; we departed. We did not notice additional ACARS MSGs from [dispatch] that we were not OK to continue until after we were airborne.  While enroute; we learned that multiple errors/events happened that contributed to departing not in compliance with MEL 2802D. SC fuel weight plus ZFW not exceeding Allowable ZFW is a fairly simple concept that I missed during all the other activity that occurred in this lengthy delay on the first leg of a long duty day at the beginning of this 4-day pairing. After gate return; coordinating/communicating updates with ATC; Dispatch; Station Ops; Customer Service; Flight Attendants and passengers got fairly busy. Dispatch informed us after departure; that load planning made a clerical error while removing the SC fuel weight from Line 11 of the Planned Weight Manifest. That error generated a fuel sheet that was 3.0 higher than intended by RLS03. We also learned later that when we queried Dispatch if we were OK to continue; another Dispatcher answered us while our Dispatcher was momentarily away from his desk.The Structural Check fuel section; FOM 4.40.7; states: the weight of structural check fuel plus actual ZFW is controlled not to exceed maximum ZFW. Simple and straight forward in hindsight; but I missed it during this operation.  The MEL Placard/Flt Planning restrictions: C. might be reworded to state this specifically; not just that it must be included in ZFW Calculations.  Because I received an updated Final Weight message and [dispatch] replied OK to continue; I was satisfied that all requirements had been met.
The dispatcher stepped away from his desk for a brief moment. While he was away; the crew on Aircraft X sent an ACARS message indicating that additional fuel had been boarded beyond the 2000 lbs allowance. I quickly glanced at the details page and determined that the additional fuel was within the defined weight limits. I then sent the crew a message that they were 'good to go and release 4 would be available momentarily' to allow for continued taxi while a release 4 was being generated. Immediately after sending the message; the dispatch of record returned to his desk; at which time I advised him of the additional fuel boarded. He immediately responded that there was a weight issue with regard to the center tank fuel boost pump on deferral. He then sent several messages to the crew to advise of the weight issue and not to proceed; to which the crew didn't respond until after airborne.
Air Carrier flight crew; dispatchers and load planners reported a flight departed over the maximum authorized weight with a fuel pump inoperative.