Narrative:

Air carrier X is leading the pack of arrivals. In order to establish spacing by speed control; I asked the pilot his speed; to which he replied; 280 knots. Not wanting the pack to stack up behind him; I asked the pilot to increase speed to 300 knots. He refused; saying; 'basically; we're at min fuel for landing.' I asked if he had done any deviating en route; to which the answer was the non-sequitur; 'we've had strong headwinds.' I have no idea what the winds were like for the entire route; but they were only half of what we've seen in the sector over the last week or so. I assigned air carrier X 280 knots; then assigned the following aircraft speeds so as to not overtake him. There were eight aircraft on frequency. I was incredulous that an air carrier would run so close to margins on a clear; relatively weather-free day; without having had any extra flying time en route. I realize that companies want to cut their fuel weight down; but this is ridiculous. What if there is an incident at the airport that causes it to lose a runway; and lower the acceptance rate? Then; even on a nice weather day; those airplanes are holding. Are the company fuel policies such now that they feel free to disregard the requirement for 45 minutes of fuel for hold before diverting to alternate? As hard as it is for me to believe that relatively moderate headwinds chewed up all this pilot's fuel reserves; the alternative is altogether too unsavory to contemplate. Was the airplane really out of fuel; or has the company put so much pressure on pilots to cut fuel consumption that they will make up excuses such as 'min fuel' when ATC asks for a mere 20 knot speed increase? Or does the responsibility fall on dispatch for failing/refusing to load enough fuel to fulfill requirements? In any case; this flight would seem to represent a case of 'dice rolling' at its most dangerous.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CTLR REQUESTS A SPD INCREASE FROM AN ACR WHICH IS REFUSED BECAUSE OF FUEL BURN CONCERNS.

Narrative: ACR X IS LEADING THE PACK OF ARRIVALS. IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SPACING BY SPEED CONTROL; I ASKED THE PILOT HIS SPEED; TO WHICH HE REPLIED; 280 KNOTS. NOT WANTING THE PACK TO STACK UP BEHIND HIM; I ASKED THE PILOT TO INCREASE SPEED TO 300 KNOTS. HE REFUSED; SAYING; 'BASICALLY; WE'RE AT MIN FUEL FOR LANDING.' I ASKED IF HE HAD DONE ANY DEVIATING EN ROUTE; TO WHICH THE ANSWER WAS THE NON-SEQUITUR; 'WE'VE HAD STRONG HEADWINDS.' I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE WINDS WERE LIKE FOR THE ENTIRE ROUTE; BUT THEY WERE ONLY HALF OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE SECTOR OVER THE LAST WEEK OR SO. I ASSIGNED ACR X 280 KNOTS; THEN ASSIGNED THE FOLLOWING AIRCRAFT SPEEDS SO AS TO NOT OVERTAKE HIM. THERE WERE EIGHT AIRCRAFT ON FREQUENCY. I WAS INCREDULOUS THAT AN AIR CARRIER WOULD RUN SO CLOSE TO MARGINS ON A CLEAR; RELATIVELY WEATHER-FREE DAY; WITHOUT HAVING HAD ANY EXTRA FLYING TIME EN ROUTE. I REALIZE THAT COMPANIES WANT TO CUT THEIR FUEL WEIGHT DOWN; BUT THIS IS RIDICULOUS. WHAT IF THERE IS AN INCIDENT AT THE AIRPORT THAT CAUSES IT TO LOSE A RUNWAY; AND LOWER THE ACCEPTANCE RATE? THEN; EVEN ON A NICE WEATHER DAY; THOSE AIRPLANES ARE HOLDING. ARE THE COMPANY FUEL POLICIES SUCH NOW THAT THEY FEEL FREE TO DISREGARD THE REQUIREMENT FOR 45 MINUTES OF FUEL FOR HOLD BEFORE DIVERTING TO ALTERNATE? AS HARD AS IT IS FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT RELATIVELY MODERATE HEADWINDS CHEWED UP ALL THIS PILOT'S FUEL RESERVES; THE ALTERNATIVE IS ALTOGETHER TOO UNSAVORY TO CONTEMPLATE. WAS THE AIRPLANE REALLY OUT OF FUEL; OR HAS THE COMPANY PUT SO MUCH PRESSURE ON PILOTS TO CUT FUEL CONSUMPTION THAT THEY WILL MAKE UP EXCUSES SUCH AS 'MIN FUEL' WHEN ATC ASKS FOR A MERE 20 KNOT SPEED INCREASE? OR DOES THE RESPONSIBILITY FALL ON DISPATCH FOR FAILING/REFUSING TO LOAD ENOUGH FUEL TO FULFILL REQUIREMENTS? IN ANY CASE; THIS FLIGHT WOULD SEEM TO REPRESENT A CASE OF 'DICE ROLLING' AT ITS MOST DANGEROUS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.