Narrative:

Flight had multiple threats occur while we operated it. We had to contend with a configuration deviation list (cdl) that even though the book says there is no penalty for it in practice there is a penalty that was not taken into account with our fuel burn. We also had issues with operations in richmond that resulted in a kennel with a dog weighing 25 pounds being loaded onto the aircraft and not communicated to the flight deck on the clear both for weight and balance purposes but also the fact that we had a live animal back there. We only found out about the dog after we landed and saw the kennel sitting behind the left wing during the offload of the cargo bin. What is concerning about it is that they could have also loaded dangerous goods and not communicated that to us as well on the flight such as dry ice that could have endangered the dog.in regards to the cdl that we had; the cdl results in a fuel burn increase of between 300-400 pounds total per hour in cruise over what we normally burn without that specific panel being missing from the airframe. I would attribute it to the fact that the smooth laminar flow about the fuselage is disrupted by that panel missing thus increasing our parasite drag. This coupled with system component failure (scf) resulted in us landing in a minimum fuel situation that had we taken any further delay would have resulted in a fuel emergency.the obvious threat with regards to the clearance (clear) is that objects and hazardous goods could be placed in our cargo bin without flight crew knowledge. The station also insisted initially in conducting pushback without headsets and then I perceived the lead to 'throw a tantrum' when I insisted on it before I would conduct a pushback from the gate. Even after they got the headset they neglected to mention the kennel being loaded in the back.we also had the cdl that resulted in a fuel burn increase over planned fuel which when combined with our scf number resulted in a 'min fuel' condition that almost became a fuel emergency all because dispatch and our maintenance department have it in their heads that there is no penalty associated with it even though our experience yesterday is contrary to that. We even texted dispatch to give him a heads up that our fuel burn was off from what they had planned because of the increased drag associated with the panel missing.the company should revisit the scf planning when an airplane has any cdl that might negatively impact the aerodynamic drag properties of the airplane. In our case; that increased fuel burn of 400 pounds per hour in cruise over the duration of an almost 2 hour flight resulted in an 800 pound decrease in our fuel load at altitude to safely conduct the flight. As has been preached to us; fuel costs money and time on the engines and APU burning gas costs us money and it adds up. I've seen those posters in the crew rooms; well the fuel burn increase adds up at altitude too. We departed with over 7;000 pounds on board yet landed with just at or under 1800 pounds on board.in regards to ground operations; there is nothing I can do as a crewmember except to babysit them while they load the cargo bin which is a waste of my time and theirs. I have attached the clear scan as well from the flight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB-145 Captain reported a CDL item increased the fuel burn 300 pounds per hour even though the book showed no penalty and landed at their destination with minimum fuel.

Narrative: Flight had multiple threats occur while we operated it. We had to contend with a Configuration Deviation List (CDL) that even though the book says there is no penalty for it in practice there is a penalty that was not taken into account with our fuel burn. We also had issues with operations in Richmond that resulted in a kennel with a dog weighing 25 pounds being loaded onto the aircraft and not communicated to the flight deck on the CLR both for weight and balance purposes but also the fact that we had a live animal back there. We only found out about the dog after we landed and saw the kennel sitting behind the left wing during the offload of the cargo bin. What is concerning about it is that they could have also loaded dangerous goods and not communicated that to us as well on the flight such as dry ice that could have endangered the dog.In regards to the CDL that we had; the CDL results in a fuel burn increase of between 300-400 pounds total per hour in cruise over what we normally burn without that specific panel being missing from the airframe. I would attribute it to the fact that the smooth laminar flow about the fuselage is disrupted by that panel missing thus increasing our parasite drag. This coupled with System Component Failure (SCF) resulted in us landing in a minimum fuel situation that had we taken any further delay would have resulted in a fuel emergency.The obvious threat with regards to the Clearance (CLR) is that objects and hazardous goods could be placed in our cargo bin without flight crew knowledge. The station also insisted initially in conducting pushback without headsets and then I perceived the lead to 'throw a tantrum' when I insisted on it before I would conduct a pushback from the gate. Even after they got the headset they neglected to mention the kennel being loaded in the back.We also had the CDL that resulted in a fuel burn increase over planned fuel which when combined with our SCF number resulted in a 'Min Fuel' condition that almost became a fuel emergency all because dispatch and our maintenance department have it in their heads that there is no penalty associated with it even though our experience yesterday is contrary to that. We even texted dispatch to give him a heads up that our fuel burn was off from what they had planned because of the increased drag associated with the panel missing.The company should revisit the SCF planning when an airplane has any CDL that might negatively impact the aerodynamic drag properties of the airplane. In our case; that increased fuel burn of 400 pounds per hour in cruise over the duration of an almost 2 hour flight resulted in an 800 pound decrease in our fuel load at altitude to safely conduct the flight. As has been preached to us; fuel costs money and time on the engines and APU burning gas costs us money and it adds up. I've seen those posters in the crew rooms; well the fuel burn increase adds up at altitude too. We departed with over 7;000 pounds on board yet landed with just at or under 1800 pounds on board.In regards to ground operations; there is nothing I can do as a crewmember except to babysit them while they load the cargo bin which is a waste of my time and theirs. I have attached the CLR scan as well from the flight.

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.