Narrative:

Our flight was dispatched with no alternate (none was required by operations specifications). ZZZ forecast called for high surface winds (190 degrees; 24 KTS gusting 35 KTS); but with barely adequate ceiling and visibility (3 SM-shra SCT012 BKN025CB). During cruise we heard aircraft diverting from because of high surface winds at both airports. We contacted our dispatcher to discuss a contingency plan in case winds precluded our landing in ZZZ. At that point the closest feasible alternate was ZZZ1 but we were not legal to file it as an alternate due to fuel requirements. We decided the contingency plan was going to be made when passing over a point on the arrival due to its close proximity to ZZZ1. At that point the reported winds at ZZZ were 210 degrees; 22 KTS gusting 36 KTS. We calculated the crosswind component and decided to continue to ZZZ as a landing could safely be made with those winds. As we got closer the wind shifted slightly and increased in speed. On approach to the runway we received a windshear warning at approximately 1000 ft AGL. We executed the recovery procedure and diverted to ZZZ1. We diverted after the first approach attempt to ensure we would make it to ZZZ1 without having to declare a fuel emergency. We arrived in ZZZ1 with 1700 pounds of fuel; 200 pounds below required reserve. It's a well known fact that our partners are putting pressure on our company not to carry any unnecessary fuel. We were dispatched with 700 pounds hold and 148 pounds tanker fuel. I have questioned excessively low fuel loads on several occasions and have found most dispatchers to be very reluctant to agree to carry extra contingency fuel. While winds do not require us to file an alternate or carry extra fuel; I believe one should have been filed due to the forecast ceiling and visibility being so close to a need for an alternate along with the strong gusty winds. Or our diversion could have possibly been avoided if we had sufficient contingency fuel to hold or attempt the approach again. By having to burn into our reserve fuel we were forced into a less than ideal situation. As a result safety was unnecessarily put at risk; and the flight cost significantly more in fuel and passenger inconvenience than it would have cost to carry a reasonable amount of tanker fuel.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ERJ FLT CREW IS DISPATCHED WITH NO ALTERNATE (NONE REQUIRED) AND STRONG GUSTY WINDS IN THE FORECAST. WINDSHEAR WARNING RECEIVED ON FINAL AND FLT DIVERTS TO ZZZ1.

Narrative: OUR FLT WAS DISPATCHED WITH NO ALTERNATE (NONE WAS REQUIRED BY OPS SPECS). ZZZ FORECAST CALLED FOR HIGH SURFACE WINDS (190 DEGS; 24 KTS GUSTING 35 KTS); BUT WITH BARELY ADEQUATE CEILING AND VISIBILITY (3 SM-SHRA SCT012 BKN025CB). DURING CRUISE WE HEARD ACFT DIVERTING FROM BECAUSE OF HIGH SURFACE WINDS AT BOTH ARPTS. WE CONTACTED OUR DISPATCHER TO DISCUSS A CONTINGENCY PLAN IN CASE WINDS PRECLUDED OUR LNDG IN ZZZ. AT THAT POINT THE CLOSEST FEASIBLE ALTERNATE WAS ZZZ1 BUT WE WERE NOT LEGAL TO FILE IT AS AN ALTERNATE DUE TO FUEL REQUIREMENTS. WE DECIDED THE CONTINGENCY PLAN WAS GOING TO BE MADE WHEN PASSING OVER A POINT ON THE ARR DUE TO ITS CLOSE PROX TO ZZZ1. AT THAT POINT THE RPTED WINDS AT ZZZ WERE 210 DEGS; 22 KTS GUSTING 36 KTS. WE CALCULATED THE XWIND COMPONENT AND DECIDED TO CONTINUE TO ZZZ AS A LNDG COULD SAFELY BE MADE WITH THOSE WINDS. AS WE GOT CLOSER THE WIND SHIFTED SLIGHTLY AND INCREASED IN SPD. ON APCH TO THE RWY WE RECEIVED A WINDSHEAR WARNING AT APPROX 1000 FT AGL. WE EXECUTED THE RECOVERY PROC AND DIVERTED TO ZZZ1. WE DIVERTED AFTER THE FIRST APCH ATTEMPT TO ENSURE WE WOULD MAKE IT TO ZZZ1 WITHOUT HAVING TO DECLARE A FUEL EMER. WE ARRIVED IN ZZZ1 WITH 1700 LBS OF FUEL; 200 LBS BELOW REQUIRED RESERVE. IT'S A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT OUR PARTNERS ARE PUTTING PRESSURE ON OUR COMPANY NOT TO CARRY ANY UNNECESSARY FUEL. WE WERE DISPATCHED WITH 700 LBS HOLD AND 148 LBS TANKER FUEL. I HAVE QUESTIONED EXCESSIVELY LOW FUEL LOADS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND HAVE FOUND MOST DISPATCHERS TO BE VERY RELUCTANT TO AGREE TO CARRY EXTRA CONTINGENCY FUEL. WHILE WINDS DO NOT REQUIRE US TO FILE AN ALTERNATE OR CARRY EXTRA FUEL; I BELIEVE ONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED DUE TO THE FORECAST CEILING AND VISIBILITY BEING SO CLOSE TO A NEED FOR AN ALTERNATE ALONG WITH THE STRONG GUSTY WINDS. OR OUR DIVERSION COULD HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN AVOIDED IF WE HAD SUFFICIENT CONTINGENCY FUEL TO HOLD OR ATTEMPT THE APCH AGAIN. BY HAVING TO BURN INTO OUR RESERVE FUEL WE WERE FORCED INTO A LESS THAN IDEAL SITUATION. AS A RESULT SAFETY WAS UNNECESSARILY PUT AT RISK; AND THE FLT COST SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IN FUEL AND PAX INCONVENIENCE THAN IT WOULD HAVE COST TO CARRY A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TANKER FUEL.

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.