Narrative:

There is a trend on 737 flight plans that consistently have arriving fuel loads without any consideration for go-arounds. Most flight plans; where no alternate is required; have flights landing with approximately 5K pounds. A go-around requires at least 1k-1.5K pounds of fuel which would result in a 'fuel low lights illuminated' (below 4K pounds) status. There is also a trend for dispatch to file aircraft at higher flight levels and minimum arrival fuel; thus no 'room for error' if forced to fly at lower altitudes due to weather and/or ride conditions thus a higher fuel burn. I have literally been told by dispatch when asking for more fuel; they would rather not add because they would be forced to remove passengers and that I could consider 'landing short' if need be. Reserve fuel loads; approximately 3K -3.8K pounds (unless additional fuel is added by dispatcher); always have aircraft landing with fuel low lights on. There also is no consideration when landing at busier airports such as ord; where vectors can burn an additional 1k pounds or more; and there is no fuel left for a go-around without declaring emergency fuel. I would suggest having fuel plans more consistent with actual flight conditions and scenarios. Have dispatchers actually review the flight plan they send out; especially taking into consideration fuel loads vs. Altitude and ride conditions. Raise the fob minimums so captains don't have to keep calling for additional fuel. Consider go-around fuel burn since it is a normal procedure.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737 Captain comments about Dispatch fuel planning methodology which does not consider real world factors; such as vectors; go-arounds; cruise altitude assignments; when dispatch fuel loads are calculated resulting in aircraft landing with FUEL LOW lights illuminated.

Narrative: There is a trend on 737 flight plans that consistently have arriving fuel loads without any consideration for go-arounds. Most flight plans; where no alternate is required; have flights landing with approximately 5K LBS. A go-around requires at least 1k-1.5K LBS of fuel which would result in a 'fuel low lights illuminated' (below 4K LBS) status. There is also a trend for Dispatch to file aircraft at higher flight levels and minimum arrival fuel; thus no 'room for error' if forced to fly at lower altitudes due to weather and/or ride conditions thus a higher fuel burn. I have literally been told by Dispatch when asking for more fuel; they would rather not add because they would be forced to remove passengers and that I could consider 'landing short' if need be. Reserve fuel loads; approximately 3K -3.8K LBS (unless additional fuel is added by Dispatcher); always have aircraft landing with fuel low lights on. There also is no consideration when landing at busier airports such as ORD; where vectors can burn an additional 1k LBS or more; and there is no fuel left for a go-around without declaring emergency fuel. I would suggest having fuel plans more consistent with actual flight conditions and scenarios. Have dispatchers actually review the flight plan they send out; especially taking into consideration fuel loads vs. altitude and ride conditions. Raise the FOB minimums so captains don't have to keep calling for additional fuel. Consider go-around fuel burn since it is a normal procedure.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.