Narrative:

When we checked in with skbo control; they cleared us direct to vulam with clearance to hold at vulam. Fortunately; we added 1600 pounds of fuel to our original release. This created a 30 minute addition (inflight delay) to our flight. Initially we reported that we were unable to hold until the expect further clearance (efc); but after further review it was accepted. We did declare 'min fuel' ensuring that it was not a request for priority handling. Although there were thunderstorms in the vicinity; our weather (WX) radar confirmed our path on the arrival from vulam; on the approach and near the airport was clear and would not prevent a landing into skbo. This was confirmed visually as well. We were cleared out of vulam with clearance to hold at the bog VOR. Reprogramming of the FMC and multiple changes between VNAV and lvl chg resulted in the airspeed being set inadvertently to 5 knot below clean maneuvering speed only momentarily. We land with 5.2 fuel on board. My issue is with the [arrival fuel] LOA and fuel planning on international flights; specifically flights to skbo. Not protecting the 1+15 minutes remaining fuel (remf) in the min takeoff fuel would have allowed this flight to depart with only 35 minutes plus alternate fuel required. Domestically; a 45 minute reserve plus alternate fuel is required. It does not seem prudent to loosen our fuel requirements to an international airport from the domestic fuel requirements due to language barriers alone. In addition to the communication issues; skbo adds late night flying; terrain; and limited alternates to the equation as well. I have had unexpected holding going into skbo nearly 33 percent of the time. Although I know the aircraft contingency fuel (acf) 90 and 99 numbers are from multiple flights; from my experience alone it puts our acf numbers into question. I would like to see if this arrival delay has been reflected in the acf data base along with flight which had to divert the following night.an additional issue was our WX forecast. At our time of arrival it was forecasted to be SCT017TCU. The arf LOA requires the acf 99 be used if ts are forecasted. I'm not sure whether this forecast is a work-around this acf 99 requirement; but I can say from experience that a forecast of SCT017TCU in skbo should have ts or vcts instead. I have seen this WX forecast issued previously with the same results.hopefully a new system for ICAO fuel planning can be formulated that does not take the alternate fuel burn into the remf. A protection of the 1+15 minutes of fuel in the min takeoff. A special arrival fuel for skbo should be considered lacking a change to our [arrival fuel] LOA. Again; I find our WX forecast and fuel planning into skbo to be very optimistic. This is probably driven by the aircraft being planned for max structural takeoff weight the majority of the time for this flight. A review of the accuracy of the acf data would be appreciated.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier flight crew reported a concern that fuel reserves required to fly to SKBO are less than required to fly to a domestic destination in the system; which makes no sense considering terrain; limited alternates and language difficulties.

Narrative: When we checked in with SKBO control; they cleared us direct to VULAM with clearance to hold at VULAM. Fortunately; we added 1600 LBS of fuel to our original release. This created a 30 minute addition (inflight delay) to our flight. Initially we reported that we were unable to hold until the Expect Further Clearance (EFC); but after further review it was accepted. We did declare 'Min fuel' ensuring that it was not a request for priority handling. Although there were thunderstorms in the vicinity; our Weather (WX) radar confirmed our path on the arrival from VULAM; on the approach and near the airport was clear and would not prevent a landing into SKBO. This was confirmed visually as well. We were cleared out of VULAM with clearance to hold at the BOG VOR. Reprogramming of the FMC and multiple changes between VNAV and LVL CHG resulted in the airspeed being set inadvertently to 5 knot below clean maneuvering speed only momentarily. We land with 5.2 Fuel On Board. My issue is with the [Arrival Fuel] LOA and fuel planning on International flights; specifically flights to SKBO. Not protecting the 1+15 minutes Remaining Fuel (REMF) in the MIN Takeoff fuel would have allowed this flight to depart with only 35 minutes plus alternate fuel required. Domestically; a 45 minute reserve plus alternate fuel is required. It does not seem prudent to loosen our fuel requirements to an international airport from the domestic fuel requirements due to language barriers alone. In addition to the communication issues; SKBO adds late night flying; terrain; and limited alternates to the equation as well. I have had unexpected holding going into SKBO nearly 33 percent of the time. Although I know the Aircraft Contingency Fuel (ACF) 90 and 99 numbers are from multiple flights; from my experience alone it puts our ACF numbers into question. I would like to see if this arrival delay has been reflected in the ACF data base along with flight which had to divert the following night.An additional issue was our WX forecast. At our time of arrival it was forecasted to be SCT017TCU. The ARF LOA requires the ACF 99 be used if TS are forecasted. I'm not sure whether this forecast is a work-around this ACF 99 requirement; but I can say from experience that a forecast of SCT017TCU in SKBO should have TS or VCTS instead. I have seen this WX forecast issued previously with the same results.Hopefully a new system for ICAO fuel planning can be formulated that does not take the alternate fuel burn into the REMF. A protection of the 1+15 minutes of fuel in the min takeoff. A special arrival fuel for SKBO should be considered lacking a change to our [Arrival Fuel] LOA. Again; I find our WX forecast and fuel planning into SKBo to be very optimistic. This is probably driven by the aircraft being planned for max structural takeoff weight the majority of the time for this flight. A review of the accuracy of the ACF data would be appreciated.

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.