Narrative:

During flight planning; the crew discussed the fact that the dispatch generated route flew through several flight planning guidance's (fpg) that called for moderate turbulence at the planned fl. When the captain raised this issue with the dispatcher; the dispatcher remarked that the fpg was due to expire and that he had access to the [latest] forecast; which we didn't have access to; and that forecast didn't indicate the turbulence being a factor. I would like to point out the following facts:the dispatcher on duty during our briefing is in bed sleeping when we encounter the forecast turbulence. Just because a fpg expires; doesn't mean the turbulence is gone. It merely means that forecast expires. In fact; most times a new fpg replaces that expired one with little or no change in forecast turbulence. The so called forecast that the dispatcher referred to had no bearing on our flight [when] we were due to land.this has been a recurring problem and; as such; flight crews are learning not to trust the routing/altitudes provided by many of the new dispatchers. It appears too that many dispatchers are just 'pushing the button' and generating 'least cost' routes.as a result; the captain asked the dispatcher to calculate and add the fuel required to fly the route; but have the necessary fuel on board to descend below the forecast turbulence in the event it was encountered. This resulted in the addition of 5000 pounds of fuel. Once enroute; the next dispatcher on duty advised us of an area of moderate turbulence of greater size and depth than the original fpg in the exact same location. We descended below the forecast area and experienced a smooth ride.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier First Officer reported their Dispatcher flight planned through known turbulence areas for an oceanic flight.

Narrative: During flight planning; the crew discussed the fact that the dispatch generated route flew through several Flight Planning Guidance's (FPG) that called for moderate turbulence at the planned FL. When the captain raised this issue with the dispatcher; the dispatcher remarked that the FPG was due to expire and that he had access to the [latest] forecast; which we didn't have access to; and that forecast didn't indicate the turbulence being a factor. I would like to point out the following facts:The dispatcher on duty during our briefing is in bed sleeping when we encounter the forecast turbulence. Just because a FPG expires; doesn't mean the turbulence is gone. It merely means that forecast expires. In fact; most times a new FPG replaces that expired one with little or no change in forecast turbulence. The so called forecast that the dispatcher referred to had no bearing on our flight [when] we were due to land.This has been a recurring problem and; as such; flight crews are learning not to trust the routing/altitudes provided by many of the new dispatchers. It appears too that many dispatchers are just 'pushing the button' and generating 'least cost' routes.As a result; the captain asked the dispatcher to calculate and add the fuel required to fly the route; but have the necessary fuel on board to descend below the forecast turbulence in the event it was encountered. This resulted in the addition of 5000 LBS of fuel. Once enroute; the next dispatcher on duty advised us of an area of moderate turbulence of greater size and depth than the original FPG in the exact same location. We descended below the forecast area and experienced a smooth ride.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.