Narrative:

Dispatch provided a fictitious planned fuel burn of only 300 lbs from ZZZ to dca via the OJAAY1 arrival and approach to landing via the river visual 19. After entering the entire flight plan with temperature deviation and enroute winds with the arrival and approach the aircraft's fuel prediction page was showing the planned fuel burn was over 700 lbs short and the required takeoff fuel over 1000 lbs short of planned. The release paper work gave 15.2 total ramp with an estimated arrival fuel of 5000 lbs. I printed a detailed fuel burn prediction plan from the aircraft and it predicted an arrival approach burn form ZZZ of 1300 lbs. I had just completed a turn where my original flight's fuel was planned with 17.2 and 7000 pounds at the destination. I had landed on that leg with only 5.4. I called the dispatcher and asked why with the near same flight conditions; payload and route my fuel plan was now 2000 lbs less than the first flight. I pointed out my first arrival fuel and that if the same conditions existed for the flight as expected I would expect to actually arrive with near emergency fuel (3.5) at dca if I accepted 15.2 ramp fuel. The dispatcher stated he would authorize the fuel; but would refuse to issue an amendment. He stated he was under strict fuel planning guidelines which prevented him from adding fuel and that he would notify the chief pilot per their internal procedures if I were to add fuel. I asked to speak with the operations supervisor. I explained that the dispatcher and I did not agree on the fuel plan and why. He re-stated that the company was imposing strict fuel planning requirements. I asked him why the planned fuel was so dramatically different only a few hours apart. I brought up the detailed waypoint fuel plan in the release had only one line for the arrival from ZZZ to dca via the OJAAY1 arrival which did not list any of the arrivals waypoints nor fuel predictions for those waypoints; instead only a fictitiously low 300 lb burn for the combined arrival and approach to landing. He stated this was a new way the arrivals were being printed and that the fuel burn for that segment was accounted for and correct. The aircraft's own on-board software knows this number is not correct. It was off by more than 1000 lbs. This is illegal flight planning. I am required by law to review the fuel plan and agree that there is enough to travel to the destination airport including the fuel required for the expected approach and landing plus any enroute ATC delays and or vectors. When I called to have the fuel plan adjusted I was twice told it is required to be directly reported to the chief pilot to intimidate me from requesting a change implying that my personal decision would be called into question for review and action by the chief pilot. The dispatcher to add the requested fuel and sent an amendment stating the additional fuel was captain requested instead of a correction to the fuel planning. I accepted a ramp fuel in ZZZ2 of 16.7 and landed in dca with 5.3. If I had not called to question the fuel plan the dispatcher under company directive and policy knowingly intended to send me with a fictitious fuel plan; which would have left me arriving with less than a 1000 lbs from declaring a fuel in flight emergency on a revenue passenger flight with the entire flight crews and passengers welfare at stake. There is no hiding the fact the fuel plans in the release are being manipulated through the flight planning software when the on board fuel burn prediction software on the aircraft shows over a 1500 difference in required fuel. In addition I had saved 400 lbs over planned taxi burning ZZZ2 using single engine taxi. If I had burned the entire taxi fuel with the additional 1500 lbs I accepted I would have landed with 4.8 lbs of fuel instead of 5.3. To put that in perspective if I had not taken the additional fuel and burned the full planned taxi fuel in ZZZ2 I would have landed in dca with 3.1 lbsof fuel.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An A319 Captain described an incident involving the refusal of the Dispatcher--per company policy--to agree to additional fuel he deemed necessary based on an identical flight earlier in the day.

Narrative: Dispatch provided a fictitious planned fuel burn of only 300 lbs from ZZZ to DCA via the OJAAY1 Arrival and Approach to landing via the River Visual 19. After entering the entire flight plan with temperature deviation and enroute winds with the arrival and approach the Aircraft's Fuel Prediction Page was showing the Planned Fuel burn was over 700 lbs short and the Required takeoff fuel over 1000 lbs short of planned. The release paper work gave 15.2 total ramp with an estimated arrival fuel of 5000 lbs. I printed a detailed Fuel Burn prediction plan from the aircraft and it predicted an arrival approach burn form ZZZ of 1300 lbs. I had just completed a turn where my original flight's fuel was Planned with 17.2 and 7000 pounds at the destination. I had landed on that leg with only 5.4. I called the Dispatcher and asked why with the near same flight conditions; payload and route my Fuel Plan was now 2000 lbs less than the first flight. I pointed out my first arrival fuel and that if the same conditions existed for the flight as expected I would expect to actually arrive with near emergency fuel (3.5) at DCA if I accepted 15.2 ramp fuel. The Dispatcher stated he would authorize the fuel; but would refuse to issue an amendment. He stated he was under strict fuel planning guidelines which prevented him from adding fuel and that he would notify the chief pilot per their internal procedures if I were to add fuel. I asked to speak with the Operations Supervisor. I explained that the Dispatcher and I did not agree on the fuel plan and why. He re-stated that the company was imposing strict fuel planning requirements. I asked him why the planned fuel was so dramatically different only a few hours apart. I brought up the Detailed Waypoint fuel plan in the release had only one line for the arrival from ZZZ to DCA via the OJAAY1 arrival which did not list any of the arrivals waypoints nor fuel predictions for those waypoints; instead only a fictitiously low 300 lb burn for the combined arrival and approach to landing. He stated this was a new way the arrivals were being printed and that the fuel burn for that segment was accounted for and correct. The aircraft's own on-board software knows this number is not correct. It was off by more than 1000 lbs. This is Illegal flight planning. I am required by law to review the fuel plan and agree that there is enough to travel to the destination airport including the fuel required for the expected approach and landing plus any enroute ATC delays and or vectors. When I called to have the fuel plan adjusted I was twice told it is required to be directly reported to the Chief Pilot to intimidate me from requesting a change implying that my personal decision would be called into question for review and action by the Chief Pilot. The Dispatcher to add the requested fuel and sent an amendment stating the additional fuel was Captain requested instead of a correction to the fuel planning. I accepted a Ramp fuel in ZZZ2 of 16.7 and landed in DCA with 5.3. If I had not called to question the fuel plan the Dispatcher under company directive and policy knowingly intended to send me with a fictitious fuel plan; which would have left me arriving with less than a 1000 lbs from declaring a fuel in flight emergency on a revenue passenger flight with the entire flight crews and passengers welfare at stake. There is no hiding the fact the fuel plans in the release are being manipulated through the flight planning software when the on board fuel burn prediction software on the aircraft shows over a 1500 difference in required fuel. In addition I had saved 400 lbs over planned taxi burning ZZZ2 using single engine taxi. If I had burned the entire taxi fuel with the additional 1500 lbs I accepted I would have landed with 4.8 lbs of fuel instead of 5.3. To put that in perspective if I had not taken the additional fuel and burned the full planned taxi fuel in ZZZ2 I would have landed in DCA with 3.1 lbsof fuel.

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.