Narrative:

I would like to address what I consider to be a safety concern in the fleet; the fuel loads presented to the PIC as inadequate on the dispatch release. I am hoping that a comprehensive examination (and subsequent change) of our practices and procedures will ensue.I was presented with a release for a flight with a landing fuel load less than safe. This is unacceptable. This event precipitated this report; however; the issue is systemic and is not isolated to this flight.when I started [at this company] over four years ago; it was unheard of to plan to land with less than 7000 lbs of fuel (as is the case at [other carriers]). A couple of years ago that was reduced further. It was then reduced even further. Now; it appears that dispatch considers this new amount 'preferred' and 5000 pounds landing fuel 'minimum.' why are we planning to land with fuel loads that other company captains refuse? And why are we planning to land with fuel loads that an in-house captain would have refused 24 months ago? It is worth noting that many of my company captains simply order additional fuel by speaking to the fueler and do not contact dispatch. Although this is convenient and easy; I believe it masks a fundamental risk in our current operation and needs to be discussed in detail.allow me to recommend; minimum fuel for landing at destination and alternate airports should be at higher levels. Additional fuel should be carried when dispatched to an airport with only one usable runway (physical runway; not different ends of the same piece of pavement.) this should be irrespective of weather at said airport. The burn profiles of our fleet need to be evaluated. Burn numbers should include approach/enroute/departure vectoring allowances; and other items listed as anticipated. Routing to the alternate needs to be shown on the release.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An air carrier Captain reported being given a release with an amount of fuel he considers unsafe and indicates this is a systemic company-wide issue.

Narrative: I would like to address what I consider to be a safety concern in the fleet; the fuel loads presented to the PIC as inadequate on the dispatch release. I am hoping that a comprehensive examination (and subsequent change) of our practices and procedures will ensue.I was presented with a release for a Flight with a landing fuel load less than safe. This is unacceptable. This event precipitated this report; however; the issue is systemic and is not isolated to this flight.When I started [at this company] over four years ago; it was unheard of to plan to land with less than 7000 lbs of fuel (as is the case at [other carriers]). A couple of years ago that was reduced further. It was then reduced even further. Now; it appears that dispatch considers this new amount 'preferred' and 5000 LBS landing fuel 'minimum.' Why are we planning to land with fuel loads that other company captains refuse? And why are we planning to land with fuel loads that an in-house captain would have refused 24 months ago? It is worth noting that many of my company captains simply order additional fuel by speaking to the fueler and do not contact dispatch. Although this is convenient and easy; I believe it masks a fundamental risk in our current operation and needs to be discussed in detail.Allow me to recommend; Minimum fuel for landing at destination AND alternate airports should be at higher levels. Additional fuel should be carried when dispatched to an airport with only one usable runway (physical runway; not different ends of the same piece of pavement.) This should be irrespective of weather at said airport. The burn profiles of our fleet need to be evaluated. Burn numbers should include approach/enroute/departure vectoring allowances; and other items listed as anticipated. Routing to the alternate needs to be shown on the release.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.