Narrative:

This is just a general notice. For whatever reasons, airline is consistently dispatching B727 international flts with very low fuel over destination. This problem seems to have again crept into the dispatch system. In one instance we were dispatched from mia to pop on flight with an unacceptable fuel load. Fortunately the captain had 2000-3000 pounds added. Because of poor ATC procedures, we waived off a visual approach, re-entered the pattern and landed. Even after adding fuel, one simple go around had us land with less than original dispatch fuel over destination. It is not uncommon to have to execute a non precision VOR approach, which would have put us in a worse predicament. As a matter of fact, approach control plans on us flying from the northwest to cross over sebound to perform a non precision instrument approach. There were no en route deviations or problems to blame for additional fuel burn. From what I can remember, passenger and cargo load were not factors either. If safety is a priority it would be advisable to not lead our crews into a dangerously low fuel crisis with few options in the caribbean. The savings of a few pennies is greatly outweighed by the loss of big dollars as a result of fuel diversions and worse, loss of lives and aircraft. A few things to think about when dispatch decides on a fuel load would be: 1) how reliable is WX reporting and forecasting in these third world locations? 2) no matter how reliable the reporting is, how fast can the WX change? 3) if weight is not a problem, why dispatch for penny savings rather than for safety and reliability? The above example gives a good reason to look into dispatch procedures and determine why aircraft are being dispatched with far too low of a fuel load. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the first officer reporter called back and said that he had felt the fuel reserves were on the 'light side' and wanted the company to have a 'heads up' on this issue. He was doing most of his flying that month out of miami. Since then he has not noted any further fuel anomalies. The planned fuel is about 8000 pounds for landing. The first officer felt the fuel loads were legal but close to lower margins. He was glad this one captain had added the extra 3000 pounds. The company responded to him and said that their fuel loads are based upon 'historical data' with the current conditions assessed for the final fuel load.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B727-200 FO RPT ON ACR DISPATCHER'S OFFICE CONSISTENTLY DISPATCHING FLTS TO THE CARIBBEAN AREA WITH LOW OR NON EXISTING FUEL RESERVES. MDPP, FO.

Narrative: THIS IS JUST A GENERAL NOTICE. FOR WHATEVER REASONS, AIRLINE IS CONSISTENTLY DISPATCHING B727 INTL FLTS WITH VERY LOW FUEL OVER DEST. THIS PROB SEEMS TO HAVE AGAIN CREPT INTO THE DISPATCH SYS. IN ONE INSTANCE WE WERE DISPATCHED FROM MIA TO POP ON FLT WITH AN UNACCEPTABLE FUEL LOAD. FORTUNATELY THE CAPT HAD 2000-3000 LBS ADDED. BECAUSE OF POOR ATC PROCS, WE WAIVED OFF A VISUAL APCH, RE-ENTERED THE PATTERN AND LANDED. EVEN AFTER ADDING FUEL, ONE SIMPLE GAR HAD US LAND WITH LESS THAN ORIGINAL DISPATCH FUEL OVER DEST. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE TO EXECUTE A NON PRECISION VOR APCH, WHICH WOULD HAVE PUT US IN A WORSE PREDICAMENT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, APCH CTL PLANS ON US FLYING FROM THE NW TO CROSS OVER SEBOUND TO PERFORM A NON PRECISION INST APCH. THERE WERE NO ENRTE DEVS OR PROBS TO BLAME FOR ADDITIONAL FUEL BURN. FROM WHAT I CAN REMEMBER, PAX AND CARGO LOAD WERE NOT FACTORS EITHER. IF SAFETY IS A PRIORITY IT WOULD BE ADVISABLE TO NOT LEAD OUR CREWS INTO A DANGEROUSLY LOW FUEL CRISIS WITH FEW OPTIONS IN THE CARIBBEAN. THE SAVINGS OF A FEW PENNIES IS GREATLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE LOSS OF BIG DOLLARS AS A RESULT OF FUEL DIVERSIONS AND WORSE, LOSS OF LIVES AND ACFT. A FEW THINGS TO THINK ABOUT WHEN DISPATCH DECIDES ON A FUEL LOAD WOULD BE: 1) HOW RELIABLE IS WX RPTING AND FORECASTING IN THESE THIRD WORLD LOCATIONS? 2) NO MATTER HOW RELIABLE THE RPTING IS, HOW FAST CAN THE WX CHANGE? 3) IF WT IS NOT A PROB, WHY DISPATCH FOR PENNY SAVINGS RATHER THAN FOR SAFETY AND RELIABILITY? THE ABOVE EXAMPLE GIVES A GOOD REASON TO LOOK INTO DISPATCH PROCS AND DETERMINE WHY ACFT ARE BEING DISPATCHED WITH FAR TOO LOW OF A FUEL LOAD. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE FO RPTR CALLED BACK AND SAID THAT HE HAD FELT THE FUEL RESERVES WERE ON THE 'LIGHT SIDE' AND WANTED THE COMPANY TO HAVE A 'HEADS UP' ON THIS ISSUE. HE WAS DOING MOST OF HIS FLYING THAT MONTH OUT OF MIAMI. SINCE THEN HE HAS NOT NOTED ANY FURTHER FUEL ANOMALIES. THE PLANNED FUEL IS ABOUT 8000 LBS FOR LNDG. THE FO FELT THE FUEL LOADS WERE LEGAL BUT CLOSE TO LOWER MARGINS. HE WAS GLAD THIS ONE CAPT HAD ADDED THE EXTRA 3000 LBS. THE COMPANY RESPONDED TO HIM AND SAID THAT THEIR FUEL LOADS ARE BASED UPON 'HISTORICAL DATA' WITH THE CURRENT CONDITIONS ASSESSED FOR THE FINAL FUEL LOAD.

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.