Narrative:

Combination of safety issues and operational issues to be discussed: -- dispatch with incorrect fuel-loading distribution (again) -- dispatch of polar route flight with an inoperative pack (again) -- dispatch of flight crew without regard to realistic maximum duty time. Once again; we were being dispatched with an illegal fuel distribution for weight and balance purposes! Today's flight was 3.5 hours late. Initially; we were delayed due to a few miscellaneous problems eventually resulting in our right side lavatories being deferred up through 18000 ft and the #3 pack totally deferred. The latter problem caused us to not accept a polar route. (This should be a separately addressed issue as 3 packs should be required to operate this aircraft in the polar region! Dispatch currently has no limitations and I do not believe that the 'normal' maintenance guidance is adequate enough for this type of flying -- nor do I believe that boeing meant it to be way back in the years when this aircraft was designed -- prior to any polar flying! With just 2 packs; you potentially risk placing this high-capacity boeing 747-400 flight in a 1-PACK operational situation for many hours over the most frigid region on our side of the earth should the loss of yet another AC/heating/pressurization pack be experienced.) taking this into consideration; we agreed to fly a southern russian route instead of a polar route. The flight time would now be increased by approximately 40 minutes and we would now require additional fuel. We seem to be having problems with the fuel distribution process on the B747-400. This is a weight and balance issue affected by the improper loading of fuel between the center tank and the horizontal stabilizer tank. Today; we were again being improperly dispatched with an 'out of cg limits' fuel-distribution problem! There is no pre-warning to the pilots about this unless you have the 'inner' knowledge that there should not be more than approximately 95000 pounds in the center tank (depending on temperature/density/weight distribution factors) without placing a balancing amount of fuel in the horizontal stabilizer tank. When our fuel load was increased to compensate for the additional flight time; the fueler advised us that the center tank shut itself off at 114000 pounds (900 pounds shy of the requested amount). That is when I initially realized that we might have another possible distribution discrepancy. I contacted load planning about this via dispatch phone patch and the load planner said to have them put the remaining fuel in the stabilizer tank. (We were later informed that this is not a proper procedure for a fueler. However; it was not his fault!) due to my previous flight experience; I still felt uncomfortable about the actual distribution itself. I contacted the load planning supervisor who happened to have been involved in our phone patches on my previous flight just 4 days earlier. He concurred that we had; once again; been incorrectly fueled! For proper weight and balance purposes; approximately 20000 pounds of fuel would be required to be placed aft in the stabilizer tank! That is a significant cg item and there is no normal way for any pilot to really know this! A decision was made that it would actually be faster to add fuel to the stabilizer tank rather than re-distributing the existing fuel. We ended up with 3 fuel sheets. Fuelers apparently load according to the fuel distribution amounts printed for them on the fuel sheets. In speaking to load planning; lp generally does not seem to know or even care about the actual distribution! For the final weights; they only seem to be concerned with the final total fuel load figure and they assume a proper distribution. From my previous experience; load planning is unable to insert the fuel amounts contained within each tank and; at the very least; let us immediately know if we are within proper cg limits! (Per the fom; the fuel amounts in each tank displayed in the cockpit should be considered to be the primary source for fuel quantities.) so; the question is; who is in charge of the fuel distribution numbers printed on the fueler's fuel sheets? Where do they come from? And; who monitors the information? How many B747-400's depart with an improper fuel loading? This needs to be sorted out as a matter of corporate and safety policy! Flight crews need to be notified and assured of the proper procedure(south) and distribution since we are not privileged to fuel-loading information and have little or no guidance in this area. Just prior to departure is not the time to be trying to figure this out. Naturally; one would rather be in a forward cg situation. But; it is extremely important that we make sure that we are 100% in compliance with cg limits for safety of flight's sake! The last matter concerns maximum crew duty time. By our calculations; our delay plus the additional en route flight time; would put us over our contractual 19:30 hour maximum duty time limit. The 'howgoesit' received after takeoff indicated that our maximum duty time would be exceeded by 7 minutes! However; in consideration for our passengers; whom we had already inconvenienced so much; we flew a bit faster than flight plan and were able to arrive with 5 minutes to spare. The question still arises: what is 'scheduled' time if you know in advance that your flight time has been re-scheduled by dispatch to be longer than the original plan before you even depart? Shouldn't the 19.5 maximum duty limit be considered as a more limiting factor than anything else especially prior to departure?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B747-400 INTL PILOT EXPRESSED CONCERNS REGARDING DISPATCH FOR POLAR OPS WITH FEWER THAN THREE OPERATIONAL AC PACKS; AND RESULTANT FUEL; AND WT AND BAL CONSIDERATIONS. HE ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER CREW DUTY LIMITS.

Narrative: COMBINATION OF SAFETY ISSUES AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED: -- DISPATCH WITH INCORRECT FUEL-LOADING DISTRIBUTION (AGAIN) -- DISPATCH OF POLAR ROUTE FLIGHT WITH AN INOPERATIVE PACK (AGAIN) -- DISPATCH OF FLIGHT CREW WITHOUT REGARD TO REALISTIC MAXIMUM DUTY TIME. ONCE AGAIN; WE WERE BEING DISPATCHED WITH AN ILLEGAL FUEL DISTRIBUTION FOR WEIGHT AND BALANCE PURPOSES! TODAY'S FLIGHT WAS 3.5 HOURS LATE. INITIALLY; WE WERE DELAYED DUE TO A FEW MISCELLANEOUS PROBLEMS EVENTUALLY RESULTING IN OUR RIGHT SIDE LAVATORIES BEING DEFERRED UP THROUGH 18000 FT AND THE #3 PACK TOTALLY DEFERRED. THE LATTER PROBLEM CAUSED US TO NOT ACCEPT A POLAR ROUTE. (THIS SHOULD BE A SEPARATELY ADDRESSED ISSUE AS 3 PACKS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO OPERATE THIS AIRCRAFT IN THE POLAR REGION! DISPATCH CURRENTLY HAS NO LIMITATIONS AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE 'NORMAL' MAINTENANCE GUIDANCE IS ADEQUATE ENOUGH FOR THIS TYPE OF FLYING -- NOR DO I BELIEVE THAT BOEING MEANT IT TO BE WAY BACK IN THE YEARS WHEN THIS AIRCRAFT WAS DESIGNED -- PRIOR TO ANY POLAR FLYING! WITH JUST 2 PACKS; YOU POTENTIALLY RISK PLACING THIS HIGH-CAPACITY BOEING 747-400 FLIGHT IN A 1-PACK OPERATIONAL SITUATION FOR MANY HOURS OVER THE MOST FRIGID REGION ON OUR SIDE OF THE EARTH SHOULD THE LOSS OF YET ANOTHER AC/HEATING/PRESSURIZATION PACK BE EXPERIENCED.) TAKING THIS INTO CONSIDERATION; WE AGREED TO FLY A SOUTHERN RUSSIAN ROUTE INSTEAD OF A POLAR ROUTE. THE FLIGHT TIME WOULD NOW BE INCREASED BY APPROXIMATELY 40 MINUTES AND WE WOULD NOW REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FUEL. WE SEEM TO BE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE FUEL DISTRIBUTION PROCESS ON THE B747-400. THIS IS A WEIGHT AND BALANCE ISSUE AFFECTED BY THE IMPROPER LOADING OF FUEL BETWEEN THE CENTER TANK AND THE HORIZONTAL STABILIZER TANK. TODAY; WE WERE AGAIN BEING IMPROPERLY DISPATCHED WITH AN 'OUT OF CG LIMITS' FUEL-DISTRIBUTION PROBLEM! THERE IS NO PRE-WARNING TO THE PILOTS ABOUT THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE THE 'INNER' KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN APPROXIMATELY 95000 LBS IN THE CENTER TANK (DEPENDING ON TEMPERATURE/DENSITY/WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION FACTORS) WITHOUT PLACING A BALANCING AMOUNT OF FUEL IN THE HORIZONTAL STABILIZER TANK. WHEN OUR FUEL LOAD WAS INCREASED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE ADDITIONAL FLIGHT TIME; THE FUELER ADVISED US THAT THE CENTER TANK SHUT ITSELF OFF AT 114000 LBS (900 LBS SHY OF THE REQUESTED AMOUNT). THAT IS WHEN I INITIALLY REALIZED THAT WE MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTION DISCREPANCY. I CONTACTED LOAD PLANNING ABOUT THIS VIA DISPATCH PHONE PATCH AND THE LOAD PLANNER SAID TO HAVE THEM PUT THE REMAINING FUEL IN THE STAB TANK. (WE WERE LATER INFORMED THAT THIS IS NOT A PROPER PROCEDURE FOR A FUELER. HOWEVER; IT WAS NOT HIS FAULT!) DUE TO MY PREVIOUS FLIGHT EXPERIENCE; I STILL FELT UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT THE ACTUAL DISTRIBUTION ITSELF. I CONTACTED THE LOAD PLANNING SUPERVISOR WHO HAPPENED TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN OUR PHONE PATCHES ON MY PREVIOUS FLIGHT JUST 4 DAYS EARLIER. HE CONCURRED THAT WE HAD; ONCE AGAIN; BEEN INCORRECTLY FUELED! FOR PROPER WEIGHT AND BALANCE PURPOSES; APPROXIMATELY 20000 LBS OF FUEL WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE PLACED AFT IN THE STAB TANK! THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT CG ITEM AND THERE IS NO NORMAL WAY FOR ANY PILOT TO REALLY KNOW THIS! A DECISION WAS MADE THAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE FASTER TO ADD FUEL TO THE STAB TANK RATHER THAN RE-DISTRIBUTING THE EXISTING FUEL. WE ENDED UP WITH 3 FUEL SHEETS. FUELERS APPARENTLY LOAD ACCORDING TO THE FUEL DISTRIBUTION AMOUNTS PRINTED FOR THEM ON THE FUEL SHEETS. IN SPEAKING TO LOAD PLANNING; LP GENERALLY DOES NOT SEEM TO KNOW OR EVEN CARE ABOUT THE ACTUAL DISTRIBUTION! FOR THE FINAL WEIGHTS; THEY ONLY SEEM TO BE CONCERNED WITH THE FINAL TOTAL FUEL LOAD FIGURE AND THEY ASSUME A PROPER DISTRIBUTION. FROM MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE; LOAD PLANNING IS UNABLE TO INSERT THE FUEL AMOUNTS CONTAINED WITHIN EACH TANK AND; AT THE VERY LEAST; LET US IMMEDIATELY KNOW IF WE ARE WITHIN PROPER CG LIMITS! (PER THE FOM; THE FUEL AMOUNTS IN EACH TANK DISPLAYED IN THE COCKPIT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE PRIMARY SOURCE FOR FUEL QUANTITIES.) SO; THE QUESTION IS; WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE FUEL DISTRIBUTION NUMBERS PRINTED ON THE FUELER'S FUEL SHEETS? WHERE DO THEY COME FROM? AND; WHO MONITORS THE INFORMATION? HOW MANY B747-400'S DEPART WITH AN IMPROPER FUEL LOADING? THIS NEEDS TO BE SORTED OUT AS A MATTER OF CORPORATE AND SAFETY POLICY! FLIGHT CREWS NEED TO BE NOTIFIED AND ASSURED OF THE PROPER PROCEDURE(S) AND DISTRIBUTION SINCE WE ARE NOT PRIVILEGED TO FUEL-LOADING INFORMATION AND HAVE LITTLE OR NO GUIDANCE IN THIS AREA. JUST PRIOR TO DEPARTURE IS NOT THE TIME TO BE TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT. NATURALLY; ONE WOULD RATHER BE IN A FORWARD CG SITUATION. BUT; IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE 100% IN COMPLIANCE WITH CG LIMITS FOR SAFETY OF FLIGHT'S SAKE! THE LAST MATTER CONCERNS MAXIMUM CREW DUTY TIME. BY OUR CALCULATIONS; OUR DELAY PLUS THE ADDITIONAL ENRTE FLIGHT TIME; WOULD PUT US OVER OUR CONTRACTUAL 19:30 HOUR MAX DUTY TIME LIMIT. THE 'HOWGOESIT' RECEIVED AFTER TAKEOFF INDICATED THAT OUR MAX DUTY TIME WOULD BE EXCEEDED BY 7 MINUTES! HOWEVER; IN CONSIDERATION FOR OUR PASSENGERS; WHOM WE HAD ALREADY INCONVENIENCED SO MUCH; WE FLEW A BIT FASTER THAN FLIGHT PLAN AND WERE ABLE TO ARRIVE WITH 5 MINUTES TO SPARE. THE QUESTION STILL ARISES: WHAT IS 'SCHEDULED' TIME IF YOU KNOW IN ADVANCE THAT YOUR FLIGHT TIME HAS BEEN RE-SCHEDULED BY DISPATCH TO BE LONGER THAN THE ORIGINAL PLAN BEFORE YOU EVEN DEPART? SHOULDN'T THE 19.5 MAX DUTY LIMIT BE CONSIDERED AS A MORE LIMITING FACTOR THAN ANYTHING ELSE ESPECIALLY PRIOR TO DEPARTURE?

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.