A B757-200 captain reported he is uncomfortable with his company's fuel planning policy when operati...

Narrative:

Flight was planned to land with 8;500 pounds. Since I felt this was inadequate to allow safe diversion should destination weather deteriorate; I added 1;500 pounds. We should have landed with 10;000 pounds. We flew only 1;000 feet above planned cruising altitude; in LNAV with flight plan cost index and mach. Headwinds were stronger than forecast; sometimes more than twice forecast; which caused a steady decrease in expected landing fuel. Dispatch was informed via HF radio. The aircraft landed with 7;000 pounds. We burned 3;000 pounds more than forecast. My concern is that when flying to the islands; this situation is not uncommon. Bare minimum fuel planning leaves us with no margin for error when planned cruising altitude is not available; or headwinds stronger than forecast. Also; the flight plan fuel burn is usually lower than what actually occurs; even when flying planned mach and cost index. Also; weather reports are sometimes inaccurate; making it impossible to know if approaches can be successfully flown. Flight plan fuel should be adequate and allow for deviations in altitude; winds and destination weather; and should always allow enough to safely divert.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 Captain reported he is uncomfortable with his company's fuel planning policy when operating from the continental U.S. to the Hawaiian Islands; stating that significant over burns are not uncommon and planning should reflect that.

Narrative: Flight was planned to land with 8;500 pounds. Since I felt this was inadequate to allow safe diversion should destination weather deteriorate; I added 1;500 pounds. We should have landed with 10;000 pounds. We flew only 1;000 feet above planned cruising altitude; in LNAV with flight plan cost index and Mach. Headwinds were stronger than forecast; sometimes more than twice forecast; which caused a steady decrease in expected landing fuel. Dispatch was informed via HF radio. The aircraft landed with 7;000 pounds. We burned 3;000 pounds more than forecast. My concern is that when flying to the islands; this situation is not uncommon. Bare minimum fuel planning leaves us with no margin for error when planned cruising altitude is not available; or headwinds stronger than forecast. Also; the flight plan fuel burn is usually lower than what actually occurs; even when flying planned Mach and cost index. Also; weather reports are sometimes inaccurate; making it impossible to know if approaches can be successfully flown. Flight plan fuel should be adequate and allow for deviations in altitude; winds and destination weather; and should always allow enough to safely divert.

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.

Attributes
ACN	895098
Time
Date	201006
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	ZHN.ARTCC
State Reference	HI
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	B757-200
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Cruise
Route In Use	Other LNAV
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Captain Pilot Not Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 80 Flight Crew Total 18800 Flight Crew Type 2000
Events
Anomaly	Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence

A B757-200 captain reported he is uncomfortable with his company's fuel planning policy when operating from the continental us to the hawaiian islands; stating that significant over burns are not uncommon and planning should reflect that.