Narrative:

I pulled up my paperwork for this flight and was surprised to see only 612 hours of holding fuel which, according to the release, was enough fuel to hold for 10 mins. Our planned flying time was 2 hours and 17 mins. The forecast required an alternate. As you well know, there are numerous factors that can cause increased fuel burn such as extended takeoff delays, taking off on a runway not aligned with route to destination, extensive departure vectors, use of anti-ice, extended level off at intermediate altitudes, having to cruise at lower than planned due to turbulence or traffic, inaccurate wind forecast, having to maneuver for an approach not aligned with arrival route, metering or spacing delays, etc. Some of these factors can impact even when terminal WX is good. We could quite conceivably have been arriving in iah with less than reserve plus alternate fuel. For these reasons I thought we needed more holding fuel. Dispatcher told me he would not allow any more holding fuel due to having to remove payload. I told him I thought the situation warranted doing whatever is required to put on a little more holding fuel, as the flight plan showed no additional fuel. In no uncertain terms dispatcher flatly and adamantly refused. He told me that if I ran short of fuel I should make a fuel stop in dfw and that this was a legal release. All the check airmen I've ever worked with have consistently stressed that legal is not always synonymous with prudent. Has this become official company policy? Are we routinely dispatching flts not knowing for sure if they have enough fuel to legally make it to their destination? Are dispatchers given any guidance on minimum holding fuel is it zero? If this is indeed company policy, please allow me to respectfully voice my strong opposition to it. This scenario places the cockpit crew in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between an unscheduled fuel stop or pressing on to destination with barely reserve plus alternate fuel, and hoping no unforseen delays crop up. If this is the policy, I strongly recommend that it be reviewed and that minimum holding fuels for dispatch be established. In my opinion, no flight should ever be dispatched with less than 20 mins of holding fuel. Circumstances will often require more than this. I don't feel that this is asking too much. We owe at least this much to our passenger and crews. Thank you for your time.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: F100 PLANNED WITH 10 MINS HOLD FUEL. DISPATCHER REFUSED TO CLR ACFT WITH ADDED FUEL FOR HOLDING ACCOUNT PAYLOAD WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED. ADVISED CAPT SHOULD HE NEED MORE FUEL HE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A FUEL STOP. CAPT QUESTIONS COMPANY POLICY IF SUCH IS THE CASE.

Narrative: I PULLED UP MY PAPERWORK FOR THIS FLT AND WAS SURPRISED TO SEE ONLY 612 HRS OF HOLDING FUEL WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE RELEASE, WAS ENOUGH FUEL TO HOLD FOR 10 MINS. OUR PLANNED FLYING TIME WAS 2 HRS AND 17 MINS. THE FORECAST REQUIRED AN ALTERNATE. AS YOU WELL KNOW, THERE ARE NUMEROUS FACTORS THAT CAN CAUSE INCREASED FUEL BURN SUCH AS EXTENDED TKOF DELAYS, TAKING OFF ON A RWY NOT ALIGNED WITH RTE TO DEST, EXTENSIVE DEP VECTORS, USE OF ANTI-ICE, EXTENDED LEVEL OFF AT INTERMEDIATE ALTS, HAVING TO CRUISE AT LOWER THAN PLANNED DUE TO TURB OR TFC, INACCURATE WIND FORECAST, HAVING TO MANEUVER FOR AN APCH NOT ALIGNED WITH ARR RTE, METERING OR SPACING DELAYS, ETC. SOME OF THESE FACTORS CAN IMPACT EVEN WHEN TERMINAL WX IS GOOD. WE COULD QUITE CONCEIVABLY HAVE BEEN ARRIVING IN IAH WITH LESS THAN RESERVE PLUS ALTERNATE FUEL. FOR THESE REASONS I THOUGHT WE NEEDED MORE HOLDING FUEL. DISPATCHER TOLD ME HE WOULD NOT ALLOW ANY MORE HOLDING FUEL DUE TO HAVING TO REMOVE PAYLOAD. I TOLD HIM I THOUGHT THE SIT WARRANTED DOING WHATEVER IS REQUIRED TO PUT ON A LITTLE MORE HOLDING FUEL, AS THE FLT PLAN SHOWED NO ADDITIONAL FUEL. IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS DISPATCHER FLATLY AND ADAMANTLY REFUSED. HE TOLD ME THAT IF I RAN SHORT OF FUEL I SHOULD MAKE A FUEL STOP IN DFW AND THAT THIS WAS A LEGAL RELEASE. ALL THE CHK AIRMEN I'VE EVER WORKED WITH HAVE CONSISTENTLY STRESSED THAT LEGAL IS NOT ALWAYS SYNONYMOUS WITH PRUDENT. HAS THIS BECOME OFFICIAL COMPANY POLICY? ARE WE ROUTINELY DISPATCHING FLTS NOT KNOWING FOR SURE IF THEY HAVE ENOUGH FUEL TO LEGALLY MAKE IT TO THEIR DEST? ARE DISPATCHERS GIVEN ANY GUIDANCE ON MINIMUM HOLDING FUEL IS IT ZERO? IF THIS IS INDEED COMPANY POLICY, PLEASE ALLOW ME TO RESPECTFULLY VOICE MY STRONG OPPOSITION TO IT. THIS SCENARIO PLACES THE COCKPIT CREW IN THE UNCOMFORTABLE POS OF HAVING TO CHOOSE BTWN AN UNSCHEDULED FUEL STOP OR PRESSING ON TO DEST WITH BARELY RESERVE PLUS ALTERNATE FUEL, AND HOPING NO UNFORSEEN DELAYS CROP UP. IF THIS IS THE POLICY, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT IT BE REVIEWED AND THAT MINIMUM HOLDING FUELS FOR DISPATCH BE ESTABLISHED. IN MY OPINION, NO FLT SHOULD EVER BE DISPATCHED WITH LESS THAN 20 MINS OF HOLDING FUEL. CIRCUMSTANCES WILL OFTEN REQUIRE MORE THAN THIS. I DON'T FEEL THAT THIS IS ASKING TOO MUCH. WE OWE AT LEAST THIS MUCH TO OUR PAX AND CREWS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

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.