Narrative:

Due to one MEL that was added (27-61-1c2); we were restricted to the slower of M.70 or 270 KTS and a maximum altitude of FL300. We were also weight restricted to a maximum to weight of 217000 pounds. Consequently; we were given no extra fuel with an additional hold fuel of 10 minutes; a pretty tight fuel situation to start with; but doable. Early at cruise; it appeared that we would be 'making fuel' as we were ahead of the fuel burn figures. Later; with an unforecast headwind increase; it was looking as if we would cut into our reserves. We were considering either elp or tus as a possible fuel diversion. The headwind component decreased to a little less than forecast; and the fuel consumption figures became more reasonable. We ended up getting some short delay vectors into phx and burned some of our hold fuel. We touched down with 5700 pounds with a dispatched reserve of 5600 pounds. According to the old fom; 'regulations do not require that a flight land with required dispatch reserves still on board.' yet the new fom requires that a diversion be made 'whenever the estimated fob at the destination is below the far required minimums.' it appears initially that the new and old fom sections currently in use are contradictory. Are we still allowed to use some of our reserve fuel; or must we land with all of it? The term 'far required minimums' seems like an ambiguous catch-all that would require us to add more fuel so we could land with reserve fuel. We got a weather update for elp and were seriously considering a diversion for fuel; should the fuel situation deteriorate. As fuel is a good substitute for brains; I'll just have to add an extra 1500 pounds; just so I won't have to do some extra thinkin'.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 CAPT RPTS QUESTIONS REQUIRED FUEL REMAINING AT DEST; AFTER A MEL REQUIRED SPD REDUCTION AND ENCOUNTERING STRONGER THAN FORECAST HEADWINDS.

Narrative: DUE TO ONE MEL THAT WAS ADDED (27-61-1C2); WE WERE RESTRICTED TO THE SLOWER OF M.70 OR 270 KTS AND A MAX ALTITUDE OF FL300. WE WERE ALSO WEIGHT RESTRICTED TO A MAX TO WT OF 217000 LBS. CONSEQUENTLY; WE WERE GIVEN NO EXTRA FUEL WITH AN ADDITIONAL HOLD FUEL OF 10 MINUTES; A PRETTY TIGHT FUEL SITUATION TO START WITH; BUT DOABLE. EARLY AT CRUISE; IT APPEARED THAT WE WOULD BE 'MAKING FUEL' AS WE WERE AHEAD OF THE FUEL BURN FIGURES. LATER; WITH AN UNFORECAST HEADWIND INCREASE; IT WAS LOOKING AS IF WE WOULD CUT INTO OUR RESERVES. WE WERE CONSIDERING EITHER ELP OR TUS AS A POSSIBLE FUEL DIVERSION. THE HEADWIND COMPONENT DECREASED TO A LITTLE LESS THAN FORECAST; AND THE FUEL CONSUMPTION FIGURES BECAME MORE REASONABLE. WE ENDED UP GETTING SOME SHORT DELAY VECTORS INTO PHX AND BURNED SOME OF OUR HOLD FUEL. WE TOUCHED DOWN WITH 5700 LBS WITH A DISPATCHED RESERVE OF 5600 LBS. ACCORDING TO THE OLD FOM; 'REGULATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE THAT A FLIGHT LAND WITH REQUIRED DISPATCH RESERVES STILL ON BOARD.' YET THE NEW FOM REQUIRES THAT A DIVERSION BE MADE 'WHENEVER THE ESTIMATED FOB AT THE DESTINATION IS BELOW THE FAR REQUIRED MINIMUMS.' IT APPEARS INITIALLY THAT THE NEW AND OLD FOM SECTIONS CURRENTLY IN USE ARE CONTRADICTORY. ARE WE STILL ALLOWED TO USE SOME OF OUR RESERVE FUEL; OR MUST WE LAND WITH ALL OF IT? THE TERM 'FAR REQUIRED MINIMUMS' SEEMS LIKE AN AMBIGUOUS CATCH-ALL THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO ADD MORE FUEL SO WE COULD LAND WITH RESERVE FUEL. WE GOT A WEATHER UPDATE FOR ELP AND WERE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING A DIVERSION FOR FUEL; SHOULD THE FUEL SITUATION DETERIORATE. AS FUEL IS A GOOD SUBSTITUTE FOR BRAINS; I'LL JUST HAVE TO ADD AN EXTRA 1500 LBS; JUST SO I WON'T HAVE TO DO SOME EXTRA THINKIN'.

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.