Narrative:

Once again; we received a flight plan that is not flyable: the cruise speed was filed and fuel planned for .795 mach. This is an unacceptable situation for a dispatcher to flight plan using performance specifics that we cannot comply with. This flight plan had minimum fuel for arrival of 14;400; which was at or very close to far minimums. Therefore; there was no actual; reasonable expectation of complying with the far fuel requirements if this flight plan had been accepted without additional fuel. This is unacceptable and a deliberate violation of fars as there is no reasonable expectation of success. This is not a new problem. On the same flight earlier in the month; the captain spent about 30 minutes on the phone with the dispatcher getting him to change the speeds to ones we could actually select. It can be done therefore not doing it is an intentional violation; which is not acceptable.I believe it is because of dispatchers who are unfamiliar with the performance capabilities of the aircraft and of normal operating procedures. A cost index of 100 is a predictable set of speeds; which is what normal procedures lead us to expect and operate with. This is a serious legal and safety issue. I don't appreciate having to; in essence; do the job of the dispatcher. The continuation of these intentional acts is unacceptable and professionally disappointing.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A330 First Officer reports receiving release with cruise speed and fuel burn that is not compatible with the way his air carrier normally expects the aircraft to be operated or with enroute ATC clearances.

Narrative: Once again; we received a flight plan that is not flyable: the cruise speed was filed and fuel planned for .795 mach. This is an unacceptable situation for a dispatcher to flight plan using performance specifics that we cannot comply with. This flight plan had minimum fuel for arrival of 14;400; which was at or very close to FAR minimums. Therefore; there was no actual; reasonable expectation of complying with the FAR fuel requirements if this flight plan had been accepted without additional fuel. This is unacceptable and a deliberate violation of FARs as there is no reasonable expectation of success. This is not a new problem. On the same flight earlier in the month; the Captain spent about 30 minutes on the phone with the Dispatcher getting him to change the speeds to ones we could actually select. It can be done therefore not doing it is an intentional violation; which is not acceptable.I believe it is because of dispatchers who are unfamiliar with the performance capabilities of the aircraft and of normal operating procedures. A cost index of 100 is a predictable set of speeds; which is what normal procedures lead us to expect and operate with. This is a serious legal and safety issue. I don't appreciate having to; in essence; do the job of the dispatcher. The continuation of these intentional acts is unacceptable and professionally disappointing.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.