37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 882868 |
Time | |
Date | 201004 |
Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | DEN.Airport |
State Reference | CO |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | B737-800 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | Final Approach |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Function | Captain Pilot Flying |
Events | |
Anomaly | Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence |
Narrative:
During preflight I elected to add 1;000 pounds of additional fuel. Rides and destination conditions were choppy and I wanted flexibility to seek better rides if chop or turbulence was encountered. Also; since I was given no alternate fuel; experience has shown that events can and do occur which compromise the landing conditions (weather; mechanical; FOD; or sudden runway or airport closure; thus requiring delaying the landing or deviating to an alternate airport. On this flight; after constant moderate turbulence on approach; we were instructed; on a 200 ft final; to go-around by den tower. After clean-up they told us that there was a sudden microburst alert on the field. We told them that we could not land at den while this was happening. They immediately stated that the alert had subsided. We were then given vectors to a different runway and commenced the approach in moderate turbulence conditions to landing (a flight attendant with many years seniority stated it was the worst turbulence she has ever experienced). With the additional fuel that I added; we were planned to land with 7;300 pounds of fuel. Our actual arrival fuel was 4;700 pounds. Had I not added the additional fuel we would have landed with approximately 3;700 pounds. If the airport would have continued under this adverse condition; our options to continue a safe flight would have been severely compromised. Needless to say; this was a very uncomfortable situation; even with the extra fuel that I added. I called dispatch and asked with respect; who is responsible for these continued low fuel loads we are dispatched with? The dispatcher stated with obvious frustration that the new fuel policy directed to all dispatchers is to reduce fuel loads on dispatch and that the dispatchers are receiving letters of reprimand and disciplinary action if they deviate from this policy. He said it is directive from the new guy in charge of the fuel policy. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. In the name of saving whatever amount it costs to carry a safe fuel load we are compromising the safety of our crews; our passengers our aircraft and potentially many lives on the ground. I have found it necessary to ask for extra fuel on roughly 7 out of 10 flights that I am in command of. In my opinion; this ridiculous policy must end voluntarily or we will find ourselves facing a catastrophic situation.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B737 Captain laments the low fuel loads that his company requires Dispatchers to use in the interest cost savings without regard for safety.
Narrative: During preflight I elected to add 1;000 LBS of additional fuel. Rides and destination conditions were choppy and I wanted flexibility to seek better rides if chop or turbulence was encountered. Also; since I was given no alternate fuel; experience has shown that events can and do occur which compromise the landing conditions (weather; mechanical; FOD; or sudden runway or airport closure; thus requiring delaying the landing or deviating to an alternate airport. On this flight; after constant moderate turbulence on approach; we were instructed; on a 200 FT final; to go-around by DEN Tower. After clean-up they told us that there was a sudden MICROBURST alert on the field. We told them that we could not land at DEN while this was happening. They immediately stated that the alert had subsided. We were then given vectors to a different runway and commenced the approach in moderate turbulence conditions to landing (a Flight Attendant with many years seniority stated it was the worst turbulence she has ever experienced). With the additional fuel that I added; we were planned to land with 7;300 LBS of fuel. Our actual arrival fuel was 4;700 LBS. Had I not added the additional fuel we would have landed with approximately 3;700 LBS. If the airport would have continued under this adverse condition; our options to continue a safe flight would have been severely compromised. Needless to say; this was a very uncomfortable situation; even with the extra fuel that I added. I called Dispatch and asked with respect; who is responsible for these continued low fuel loads we are dispatched with? The Dispatcher stated with obvious frustration that the new fuel policy directed to all dispatchers is to reduce fuel loads on dispatch and that the dispatchers are receiving letters of reprimand and disciplinary action if they deviate from this policy. He said it is directive from the new guy in charge of the fuel policy. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. In the name of saving whatever amount it costs to carry a safe fuel load we are compromising the safety of our crews; our passengers our aircraft and potentially many lives on the ground. I have found it necessary to ask for extra fuel on roughly 7 out of 10 flights that I am in command of. In my opinion; this ridiculous policy must end voluntarily or we will find ourselves facing a catastrophic situation.
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.