Narrative:

Had filed IFR from boston area to lancaster, but clearance was nothing near as I filed it and took me much further north than desired, and also much higher altitude than desired. Factors: cold frontal system, strong winds aloft, inability to arrange most direct routing and lower altitude out of winds, pilot fatigue/stress related to conditions, complex and congested airspace at northeast corridor, and possibly also controller workload. I first realized a problem developing when approach issued me a climb to 8000'. Once level I asked for lower and found my ground speed while at 8000' was only 40 KTS when I planned on 90 KTS at 4000'. This was the first indication that I would not meet 91.167 IFR fuel requirements. In time I was able to receive lower altitudes (6000', followed by 4000'), and increase the ground speed somewhat. As I approached the destination the WX conditions were improving, it was VFR, so I decided to not declare a minimum fuel advisory. As it turns out, I made it to the destination uneventfully, but did not meet the IFR fuel requirements of 91.167 upon landing. I filed this form to speak my views on pilot decisions/judgements. Reflecting back upon this entire flight, one fault is clear now: I had the classic case of get homeitis. The flight proceeded uneventfully, but could have become the classic case of running out of fuel just short of the destination. I can simply say that I can now better recognize this attitude when it occurs in me again. I also feel that on this very day, the service provided to me was very poor by ARTCC. Center knows the aircraft type and should know something about its capabilities. I felt their decision to clear my aircraft type up into a 60 KT headwind was a poor one, at best. Don't they realize that this throws a wrench into even the very best preflight planning. Also, as a pilot with a commuter, and flying privately on this occasion, I have noticed a difference in the level of service when you fly by a company name under a flight #. This seems to conflict with the interest of safety, as I see it.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA ON IFR FLT USES PART OF HIS FUEL RESERVE BECAUSE OF ADVERSE HEADWINDS AT HIGHER THAN PLANNED ALT.

Narrative: HAD FILED IFR FROM BOSTON AREA TO LANCASTER, BUT CLRNC WAS NOTHING NEAR AS I FILED IT AND TOOK ME MUCH FURTHER N THAN DESIRED, AND ALSO MUCH HIGHER ALT THAN DESIRED. FACTORS: COLD FRONTAL SYS, STRONG WINDS ALOFT, INABILITY TO ARRANGE MOST DIRECT ROUTING AND LOWER ALT OUT OF WINDS, PLT FATIGUE/STRESS RELATED TO CONDITIONS, COMPLEX AND CONGESTED AIRSPACE AT NE CORRIDOR, AND POSSIBLY ALSO CTLR WORKLOAD. I FIRST REALIZED A PROB DEVELOPING WHEN APCH ISSUED ME A CLB TO 8000'. ONCE LEVEL I ASKED FOR LOWER AND FOUND MY GND SPD WHILE AT 8000' WAS ONLY 40 KTS WHEN I PLANNED ON 90 KTS AT 4000'. THIS WAS THE FIRST INDICATION THAT I WOULD NOT MEET 91.167 IFR FUEL REQUIREMENTS. IN TIME I WAS ABLE TO RECEIVE LOWER ALTS (6000', FOLLOWED BY 4000'), AND INCREASE THE GND SPD SOMEWHAT. AS I APCHED THE DEST THE WX CONDITIONS WERE IMPROVING, IT WAS VFR, SO I DECIDED TO NOT DECLARE A MINIMUM FUEL ADVISORY. AS IT TURNS OUT, I MADE IT TO THE DEST UNEVENTFULLY, BUT DID NOT MEET THE IFR FUEL REQUIREMENTS OF 91.167 UPON LNDG. I FILED THIS FORM TO SPEAK MY VIEWS ON PLT DECISIONS/JUDGEMENTS. REFLECTING BACK UPON THIS ENTIRE FLT, ONE FAULT IS CLEAR NOW: I HAD THE CLASSIC CASE OF GET HOMEITIS. THE FLT PROCEEDED UNEVENTFULLY, BUT COULD HAVE BECOME THE CLASSIC CASE OF RUNNING OUT OF FUEL JUST SHORT OF THE DEST. I CAN SIMPLY SAY THAT I CAN NOW BETTER RECOGNIZE THIS ATTITUDE WHEN IT OCCURS IN ME AGAIN. I ALSO FEEL THAT ON THIS VERY DAY, THE SVC PROVIDED TO ME WAS VERY POOR BY ARTCC. CENTER KNOWS THE ACFT TYPE AND SHOULD KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT ITS CAPABILITIES. I FELT THEIR DECISION TO CLR MY ACFT TYPE UP INTO A 60 KT HEADWIND WAS A POOR ONE, AT BEST. DON'T THEY REALIZE THAT THIS THROWS A WRENCH INTO EVEN THE VERY BEST PREFLT PLANNING. ALSO, AS A PLT WITH A COMMUTER, AND FLYING PRIVATELY ON THIS OCCASION, I HAVE NOTICED A DIFFERENCE IN THE LEVEL OF SVC WHEN YOU FLY BY A COMPANY NAME UNDER A FLT #. THIS SEEMS TO CONFLICT WITH THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, AS I SEE IT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.