Narrative:

While reviewing the flight plan, I noticed that with dfw as the destination and dal as the alternate, the alternate fuel was only 680 pounds. It seemed to me that previously the amount was at least 1000 pounds up to 1200 pounds. I called the dispatcher and had him look at another MD80, a B737, and a B757. Their numbers also seemed to be low. Since we really didn't need an alternate, I wasn't concerned and asked the dispatcher to do some research and call me or send me a message. After arrival at dfw, I called the dispatcher back and found out that yesterday (feb/sat/04) someone had reprogrammed the computer and it figured alternate fuel based on a straight line between dfw and dal. Highly unlikely in real life. During his research, he was able to contact the people involved with the change and they were unable to answer his questions. Consequently, he filled out an as soon as possible report for all the flts he had dispatched. We believe that technically, we are in violation of the FARS because we planned an alternate and did not have adequate fuel to execute the missed and proceed to the alternate. We have come to trust the computer here at our airline. If you are going to mess with the programming, then make sure what you are doing is correct. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: when the reporter called dispatch back, the dispatcher stated that the company had reassessed their fuel sits and decided that fuels required for alternate airport operations could be reduced by using the straight line approach. Dispatcher was advised that this was a legal operation that met the standards as required by the FARS. After further consideration, the company decided to go back to the more conservative approach to the computing of the fuel required as too many crews were making an issue of this new procedure.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 PIC RPT RELATED TO INCORRECT FUEL FIGURES FOR ALTERNATE FUELS INVOLVING VARIOUS ARPTS IN THE LCL AREA.

Narrative: WHILE REVIEWING THE FLT PLAN, I NOTICED THAT WITH DFW AS THE DEST AND DAL AS THE ALTERNATE, THE ALTERNATE FUEL WAS ONLY 680 LBS. IT SEEMED TO ME THAT PREVIOUSLY THE AMOUNT WAS AT LEAST 1000 LBS UP TO 1200 LBS. I CALLED THE DISPATCHER AND HAD HIM LOOK AT ANOTHER MD80, A B737, AND A B757. THEIR NUMBERS ALSO SEEMED TO BE LOW. SINCE WE REALLY DIDN'T NEED AN ALTERNATE, I WASN'T CONCERNED AND ASKED THE DISPATCHER TO DO SOME RESEARCH AND CALL ME OR SEND ME A MESSAGE. AFTER ARR AT DFW, I CALLED THE DISPATCHER BACK AND FOUND OUT THAT YESTERDAY (FEB/SAT/04) SOMEONE HAD REPROGRAMMED THE COMPUTER AND IT FIGURED ALTERNATE FUEL BASED ON A STRAIGHT LINE BTWN DFW AND DAL. HIGHLY UNLIKELY IN REAL LIFE. DURING HIS RESEARCH, HE WAS ABLE TO CONTACT THE PEOPLE INVOLVED WITH THE CHANGE AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS. CONSEQUENTLY, HE FILLED OUT AN ASAP RPT FOR ALL THE FLTS HE HAD DISPATCHED. WE BELIEVE THAT TECHNICALLY, WE ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE FARS BECAUSE WE PLANNED AN ALTERNATE AND DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE FUEL TO EXECUTE THE MISSED AND PROCEED TO THE ALTERNATE. WE HAVE COME TO TRUST THE COMPUTER HERE AT OUR AIRLINE. IF YOU ARE GOING TO MESS WITH THE PROGRAMMING, THEN MAKE SURE WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS CORRECT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: WHEN THE RPTR CALLED DISPATCH BACK, THE DISPATCHER STATED THAT THE COMPANY HAD REASSESSED THEIR FUEL SITS AND DECIDED THAT FUELS REQUIRED FOR ALTERNATE ARPT OPS COULD BE REDUCED BY USING THE STRAIGHT LINE APCH. DISPATCHER WAS ADVISED THAT THIS WAS A LEGAL OP THAT MET THE STANDARDS AS REQUIRED BY THE FARS. AFTER FURTHER CONSIDERATION, THE COMPANY DECIDED TO GO BACK TO THE MORE CONSERVATIVE APCH TO THE COMPUTING OF THE FUEL REQUIRED AS TOO MANY CREWS WERE MAKING AN ISSUE OF THIS NEW PROC.

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.