Narrative:

Dispatch release to bur with 15500 pounds of ferry fuel. Pulled flight plan for night VFR flight to bur, fuel load showed release fuel 30262 pounds, ferry 15488 pounds, total burn 22252 pounds. Plan arrival fuel 23488 pounds. The tps (takeoff performance computer) showed our ZFW to be 104000 pounds. This would put our landing weight at approximately 128000 pounds, 2000 pounds below maximum landing weight. I called dispatcher and asked why we were ferrying all that fuel into an airport with a runway length of 5802 ft. His reply was that the computer told him to add it, that it would save the company $100, so he did. I asked if he thought that was wise considering the runway length and he replied that it was part of our fuel cost saving program and then added that he might be able to reach the fueler and stop him from adding the additional fuel if I wanted him to. I told him that I did indeed want him to stop the additional fuel from being added and I would call him from the aircraft for a new release fuel number. The flight was re-released with 28300 pounds of fuel at XA32Z and we departed on time. I do not think we should have a computer program that only looks at dollars saved while ignoring short runway lengths at unnecessarily high landing weights. Nor should we have dispatchers blindly following the dictates of those programs. No flight should be ferrying return trip fuel into airports with runways considered short by our operations specifications. Supplemental information from acn 594903: captain arrived at airplane with flight papers and said we would be getting new release reflecting deletion of ferry fuel. Captain disagreed with dispatcher's decision to add 15500 pounds of ferry fuel into burbank's 5800 ft runway because it would save $100. I agreed. The extra fuel would have us landing near maximum allowable landing weight at 128000 pounds versus 112000 pounds. Without the added fuel increased our flaps 40 vref by 9 KTS or 7 KTS, based on 131 KTS and 122 KTS respectively. From basic aerodynamics class I believe that a 7 KT increase in landing speed increases landing distance by double, or 14 ft. Though relatively small increase in distance, I believe this is where dispatch should use judgement and override the fuel savings program. Does $100 pay for the added wear and tear on brakes and engines and increased risk of going off the end of the runway? Though technically possible to do, I don't believe it is good operating practice.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THE ACR DISPATCHER ADDED FERRY FUEL FOR AN MD80 FLT INTO BUR WITHOUT THE CAPT'S CONCURRENCE. THE CAPT HAD NOT REQUESTED THE FERRY FUEL.

Narrative: DISPATCH RELEASE TO BUR WITH 15500 LBS OF FERRY FUEL. PULLED FLT PLAN FOR NIGHT VFR FLT TO BUR, FUEL LOAD SHOWED RELEASE FUEL 30262 LBS, FERRY 15488 LBS, TOTAL BURN 22252 LBS. PLAN ARR FUEL 23488 LBS. THE TPS (TKOF PERFORMANCE COMPUTER) SHOWED OUR ZFW TO BE 104000 LBS. THIS WOULD PUT OUR LNDG WT AT APPROX 128000 LBS, 2000 LBS BELOW MAX LNDG WT. I CALLED DISPATCHER AND ASKED WHY WE WERE FERRYING ALL THAT FUEL INTO AN ARPT WITH A RWY LENGTH OF 5802 FT. HIS REPLY WAS THAT THE COMPUTER TOLD HIM TO ADD IT, THAT IT WOULD SAVE THE COMPANY $100, SO HE DID. I ASKED IF HE THOUGHT THAT WAS WISE CONSIDERING THE RWY LENGTH AND HE REPLIED THAT IT WAS PART OF OUR FUEL COST SAVING PROGRAM AND THEN ADDED THAT HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO REACH THE FUELER AND STOP HIM FROM ADDING THE ADDITIONAL FUEL IF I WANTED HIM TO. I TOLD HIM THAT I DID INDEED WANT HIM TO STOP THE ADDITIONAL FUEL FROM BEING ADDED AND I WOULD CALL HIM FROM THE ACFT FOR A NEW RELEASE FUEL NUMBER. THE FLT WAS RE-RELEASED WITH 28300 LBS OF FUEL AT XA32Z AND WE DEPARTED ON TIME. I DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT ONLY LOOKS AT DOLLARS SAVED WHILE IGNORING SHORT RWY LENGTHS AT UNNECESSARILY HIGH LNDG WTS. NOR SHOULD WE HAVE DISPATCHERS BLINDLY FOLLOWING THE DICTATES OF THOSE PROGRAMS. NO FLT SHOULD BE FERRYING RETURN TRIP FUEL INTO ARPTS WITH RWYS CONSIDERED SHORT BY OUR OPS SPECS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 594903: CAPT ARRIVED AT AIRPLANE WITH FLT PAPERS AND SAID WE WOULD BE GETTING NEW RELEASE REFLECTING DELETION OF FERRY FUEL. CAPT DISAGREED WITH DISPATCHER'S DECISION TO ADD 15500 LBS OF FERRY FUEL INTO BURBANK'S 5800 FT RWY BECAUSE IT WOULD SAVE $100. I AGREED. THE EXTRA FUEL WOULD HAVE US LNDG NEAR MAX ALLOWABLE LNDG WT AT 128000 LBS VERSUS 112000 LBS. WITHOUT THE ADDED FUEL INCREASED OUR FLAPS 40 VREF BY 9 KTS OR 7 KTS, BASED ON 131 KTS AND 122 KTS RESPECTIVELY. FROM BASIC AERODYNAMICS CLASS I BELIEVE THAT A 7 KT INCREASE IN LNDG SPD INCREASES LNDG DISTANCE BY DOUBLE, OR 14 FT. THOUGH RELATIVELY SMALL INCREASE IN DISTANCE, I BELIEVE THIS IS WHERE DISPATCH SHOULD USE JUDGEMENT AND OVERRIDE THE FUEL SAVINGS PROGRAM. DOES $100 PAY FOR THE ADDED WEAR AND TEAR ON BRAKES AND ENGS AND INCREASED RISK OF GOING OFF THE END OF THE RWY? THOUGH TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE TO DO, I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS GOOD OPERATING PRACTICE.

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.