Narrative:

I am an aircraft dispatcher with xyz airlines, and was working a charter flight from frankfurt, germany, to jubail, saudi arabia. The widebody transport was released at maximum structural takeoff weight of 734000 pounds, minimum fuel of 235,000 pounds, an alternate of riyadh, saudi arabia, and a maximum zero fuel weight of 500000 which gave a planned fuel on arrival at jubail of 52800 pounds. As the aircraft was taxiing for takeoff, a phone patch was received from the flight crew stating that the aircraft had been loaded with an actual zero fuel weight of 511000 pounds and fuel on board of 220800 pounds. Rather than deplane 40 military personnel it was decided, with the captain's concurrence, to change the alternate to dhahran, saudi arabia with a forecast of an occasional two mi visibility with fog. Since the captain was familiar with the route and was comfortable with this change, an amendment to the release was made and the aircraft departed with an expected fuel on arrival of 34600 pounds. Although all that transpired with this mac mission was legal, this amount of fuel on arrival was not the safest operation when flying into a possible war zone. Conclusions and comments: increased communication and planning between marketing departments and flight dispatch is needed when establishing the amount of payload that can be carried on a specific flight segment with a particular aircraft. Flight dispatch needs to be involved in the marketing decisions to maximize safety and minimize the number of inconvenienced customers. Increase communication between ramp personnel and flight dispatch. The decision, in this situation by the load agent, to board 220800 pounds of fuel instead of 235200 pounds of fuel was not his/hers to make. Flight dispatch should have been contacted to make this decision prior to the airplane leaving the gate area. This occurrence illustrates some of the problems facing flight dispatchers. First is the difficulty in keeping operational control of aircraft in his/her charge. And second, is the problem of balancing the safety of an operation with economic and convenience factors connected with that operation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MIL CHARTER WDB DEP GATE IN TAXI OPERATION WITHOUT FUEL REQUIRED FOR DESTINATION AND ALT ARPT.

Narrative: I AM AN ACFT DISPATCHER WITH XYZ AIRLINES, AND WAS WORKING A CHARTER FLT FROM FRANKFURT, GERMANY, TO JUBAIL, SAUDI ARABIA. THE WDB WAS RELEASED AT MAX STRUCTURAL TKOF WEIGHT OF 734000 LBS, MINIMUM FUEL OF 235,000 LBS, AN ALTERNATE OF RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA, AND A MAX ZERO FUEL WEIGHT OF 500000 WHICH GAVE A PLANNED FUEL ON ARR AT JUBAIL OF 52800 LBS. AS THE ACFT WAS TAXIING FOR TKOF, A PHONE PATCH WAS RECEIVED FROM THE FLT CREW STATING THAT THE ACFT HAD BEEN LOADED WITH AN ACTUAL ZERO FUEL WEIGHT OF 511000 LBS AND FUEL ON BOARD OF 220800 LBS. RATHER THAN DEPLANE 40 MIL PERSONNEL IT WAS DECIDED, WITH THE CAPT'S CONCURRENCE, TO CHANGE THE ALTERNATE TO DHAHRAN, SAUDI ARABIA WITH A FORECAST OF AN OCCASIONAL TWO MI VISIBILITY WITH FOG. SINCE THE CAPT WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE RTE AND WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THIS CHANGE, AN AMENDMENT TO THE RELEASE WAS MADE AND THE ACFT DEPARTED WITH AN EXPECTED FUEL ON ARR OF 34600 LBS. ALTHOUGH ALL THAT TRANSPIRED WITH THIS MAC MISSION WAS LEGAL, THIS AMOUNT OF FUEL ON ARR WAS NOT THE SAFEST OPERATION WHEN FLYING INTO A POSSIBLE WAR ZONE. CONCLUSIONS AND COMMENTS: INCREASED COM AND PLANNING BTWN MARKETING DEPARTMENTS AND FLT DISPATCH IS NEEDED WHEN ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF PAYLOAD THAT CAN BE CARRIED ON A SPECIFIC FLT SEGMENT WITH A PARTICULAR ACFT. FLT DISPATCH NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED IN THE MARKETING DECISIONS TO MAXIMIZE SAFETY AND MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF INCONVENIENCED CUSTOMERS. INCREASE COM BTWN RAMP PERSONNEL AND FLT DISPATCH. THE DECISION, IN THIS SITUATION BY THE LOAD AGENT, TO BOARD 220800 LBS OF FUEL INSTEAD OF 235200 LBS OF FUEL WAS NOT HIS/HERS TO MAKE. FLT DISPATCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONTACTED TO MAKE THIS DECISION PRIOR TO THE AIRPLANE LEAVING THE GATE AREA. THIS OCCURRENCE ILLUSTRATES SOME OF THE PROBS FACING FLT DISPATCHERS. FIRST IS THE DIFFICULTY IN KEEPING OPERATIONAL CTL OF ACFT IN HIS/HER CHARGE. AND SEC, IS THE PROB OF BALANCING THE SAFETY OF AN OPERATION WITH ECONOMIC AND CONVENIENCE FACTORS CONNECTED WITH THAT OPERATION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.