Narrative:

I wanted to bring to light an issue that I have seen with how this airline plans its flights. I would like to preface this report not as a gripe with the new fuel policy that has been adopted with lowering of minf as well as cont fuel; but that this problem was never a serious concern until the fuel policy was changed. My flight was planned from lax-ZZZ; via standard routing with a cruise altitude of FL350. The distance between lax and the lax VOR is 1 NM. The departure however is not 1 NM; on average you fly anywhere between 5-15 NM before crossing the lax VOR. Additionally; the way that the flight plan states; the total planned fuel for this flight was 11;300 lbs with 600 lbs of taxi. That means you are planned to takeoff at 10;700 lbs of fuel. The planned fuel at the lax VOR shows 10;662 lbs. That means that the flight plan has you burning only 38 lbs of fuel between lax-lax VOR. The LOOP8 SID is dependent on 'at or above' altitude crossings; therefore your climb rate is purely dependent on how far you fly out before the controller turns the aircraft back towards lax VOR. On this particular flight; we estimated about 15 NM; a fairly standard; and as expected loop 8 departure. Generally; the loop SID is used for easterly departures; which can sometimes take you to airports where you have a large fuel load; increasing your tow (takeoff weight); and therefore reducing your climb rate; which increases the distance that you fly before turning back towards the lax VOR. Our planned tow on this flight was 71190 lbs; fairly light compared to some of the other fights we fly using the loop 8. In my case; I was fortunate to have taken off with only using 300 lbs of my allotted 600 lbs of taxi fuel; which will be important for later. I took off with 11;000 lbs of fuel. When I eventually crossed the lax VOR; I found that our fuel was 10;100 lbs. That means I burned 900 lbs of fuel between lax and the lax VOR. That is a large difference between the planned of 38lbs. Minimum fuel at the lax VOR on this flight plan was 9;893 lbs (for easy math lets; use 9;900 lbs) remember that 300 lbs of extra taxi gas? Had I taken off with the planned takeoff fuel of 10;700-900=9;800 lbs of gas. In the first 5 minutes of the flight; I would have been below minimum fuel. I spent a large portion of my time at this airline flying the LOOP8 departure because of the types of trips I bid. I consistently noticed the flights that involved the loop SID; casta SID and the holtz SID; do not accurately account for fuel burn between waypoints. The loop SID by far burns the most unplanned fuel than any other departure SID in lax. Also; most flights that have the loop SID; if flown with the fleet of older aircraft flown at planned speeds and altitudes; will always land below planned fuel by a significant amount. On this particular flight; I was light enough to climb to FL370; as well as receive a change in arrival STAR; which shortened the total flying distance. This fortunate event allowed me to land near planned fuel. Had I not been able to fly at FL370; as well as be fortunate for the change in the shorter STAR; I would have had to resort to other fuel saving techniques. This leads to my other problem with every flight plan that this airline has generated. Under the 'operation modes' the climb and cruise speeds are accurate and generally do not pose operational problems. My problem lies solely with the descent speeds. In lax; most of the airports we fly to; we are filed with RNAV arrivals. These RNAV arrivals normally have speed restrictions that are standard at 280 knots or 'descend via mach number until transition to 280 kts. Maintain 280 kts until slowed by STAR'. My understanding is if we are cruising at mach .78; and were cleared to 'descend via RNAV abc arrival'; we are to maintain mach .78; and transition from mach .78 to 280 knots. My understanding is that the 270/.75 speeds that are default on every flight plan I have ever seen; is to help promote flight idle descents. Although only 10 knots and mach .03 do not seem significant; the difference in landing fuel at ETA can change 100-200 lbs depending on the distance/length of the RNAV arrival. This is also true of stars at various airports with specific speed and altitude restrictions. As part of the solution; I hoped that I was able to take the information; and without emotion and by using pure facts; demonstrate the poor flight planning not only with lax-ZZZ; but every flight for that matter. A typical flight from lax-ZZZ would normally have anywhere between 1100-1600 lbs of contingency under the old policy. This was normally enough fuel to mask the severe difference between planned fuel burn and actual fuel burn between lax and lax VOR. I would like to see more realistic flight planning on our flights. Reducing minimum fuel and contingency fuel has been justified by the FAA and the company as safe; and I am responsible for operating safely within those parameters. If my tools to operate safely are not accurate; or in this case 900 lbs off; utilizing a standard policy of only 700 lbs of contingency is not enough. In closing; I would like to reiterate that this report is not an intent on finding a flaw in the new fuel policy at this airline; it is actually how the new fuel policy is shedding light on bigger problems that were masked by the old fuel policy.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB-175 Captain commented about new company fuel policy which does not take into account actual conditions and distances on planned routings.

Narrative: I wanted to bring to light an issue that I have seen with how this airline plans its flights. I would like to preface this report not as a gripe with the new fuel policy that has been adopted with lowering of MINF as well as CONT fuel; but that this problem was never a serious concern until the fuel policy was changed. My flight was planned from LAX-ZZZ; via standard routing with a cruise altitude of FL350. The distance between LAX and the LAX VOR is 1 NM. The departure however is not 1 NM; on average you fly anywhere between 5-15 NM before crossing the LAX VOR. Additionally; the way that the flight plan states; the total planned fuel for this flight was 11;300 lbs with 600 lbs of taxi. That means you are planned to takeoff at 10;700 lbs of fuel. The planned fuel at the LAX VOR shows 10;662 lbs. That means that the flight plan has you burning only 38 lbs of fuel between LAX-LAX VOR. The LOOP8 SID is dependent on 'at or above' altitude crossings; therefore your climb rate is purely dependent on how far you fly out before the controller turns the aircraft back towards LAX VOR. On this particular flight; we estimated about 15 NM; a fairly standard; and as expected LOOP 8 departure. Generally; the LOOP SID is used for easterly departures; which can sometimes take you to airports where you have a large fuel load; increasing your TOW (Takeoff Weight); and therefore reducing your climb rate; which increases the distance that you fly before turning back towards the LAX VOR. Our planned TOW on this flight was 71190 lbs; fairly light compared to some of the other fights we fly using the LOOP 8. In my case; I was fortunate to have taken off with only using 300 lbs of my allotted 600 lbs of taxi fuel; which will be important for later. I took off with 11;000 lbs of fuel. When I eventually crossed the LAX VOR; I found that our fuel was 10;100 lbs. That means I burned 900 lbs of fuel between LAX and the LAX VOR. That is a large difference between the planned of 38lbs. Minimum fuel at the LAX VOR on this flight plan was 9;893 lbs (for easy math lets; use 9;900 lbs) Remember that 300 lbs of extra taxi gas? Had I taken off with the planned takeoff fuel of 10;700-900=9;800 lbs of gas. In the first 5 minutes of the flight; I would have been below minimum fuel. I spent a large portion of my time at this airline flying the LOOP8 departure because of the types of trips I bid. I consistently noticed the flights that involved the LOOP SID; CASTA SID and the HOLTZ SID; do not accurately account for fuel burn between waypoints. The LOOP SID by far burns the most unplanned fuel than any other departure SID in LAX. Also; most flights that have the LOOP SID; if flown with the fleet of older aircraft flown at planned speeds and altitudes; will always land below planned fuel by a significant amount. On this particular flight; I was light enough to climb to FL370; as well as receive a change in arrival STAR; which shortened the total flying distance. This fortunate event allowed me to land near planned fuel. Had I not been able to fly at FL370; as well as be fortunate for the change in the shorter STAR; I would have had to resort to other fuel saving techniques. This leads to my other problem with every flight plan that this airline has generated. Under the 'OPERATION MODES' the climb and cruise speeds are accurate and generally do not pose operational problems. My problem lies solely with the descent speeds. In LAX; most of the airports we fly to; we are filed with RNAV arrivals. These RNAV arrivals normally have speed restrictions that are standard at 280 knots or 'descend via Mach number until transition to 280 kts. Maintain 280 kts until slowed by STAR'. My understanding is if we are cruising at Mach .78; and were cleared to 'DESCEND VIA RNAV ABC ARRIVAL'; we are to maintain Mach .78; and transition from Mach .78 to 280 knots. My understanding is that the 270/.75 speeds that are default on every flight plan I have ever seen; is to help promote flight idle descents. Although only 10 knots and MACH .03 do not seem significant; the difference in landing fuel at ETA can change 100-200 lbs depending on the distance/length of the RNAV arrival. This is also true of STARs at various airports with specific speed and altitude restrictions. As part of the solution; I hoped that I was able to take the information; and without emotion and by using pure facts; demonstrate the poor flight planning not only with LAX-ZZZ; but every flight for that matter. A typical flight from LAX-ZZZ would normally have anywhere between 1100-1600 lbs of contingency under the old policy. This was normally enough fuel to mask the severe difference between planned fuel burn and actual fuel burn between LAX and LAX VOR. I would like to see more realistic flight planning on our flights. Reducing minimum fuel and contingency fuel has been justified by the FAA and the Company as safe; and I am responsible for operating safely within those parameters. If my tools to operate safely are not accurate; or in this case 900 lbs off; utilizing a standard policy of only 700 lbs of contingency is not enough. In closing; I would like to reiterate that this report is not an intent on finding a flaw in the new fuel policy at this airline; it is actually how the new fuel policy is shedding light on bigger problems that were masked by the old fuel policy.

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.