Narrative:

We had to land at cmi because we were running out of fuel. The problem was that we had no performance data for the emb-120 for a landing at cmi. The reason for landing at cmi was because of fuel. We departed tvc with 2500 pounds of fuel for ord and had sbn as an alternate. When we arrived at ord it was below landing minimums so we continued on to sbn. When we got to sbn it was also below landing minimums. Due to the small selection of airports with APU data we decided we could make it to spi. But due to ATC and unforeseen head winds we calculated again and arrived at the conclusion that we would land at spi with 200 pounds of fuel or less. It was then decided by the crew to land at cmi without APU data. We landed on runway 32L which has 8100 ft. The following factors are what I think hindered my judgement on fuel planning. We did leave with legal fuel, but we could have taken much more. I was not able to give 100 percent of my attention and abilities because of the following. 1) it was my first trip off of IOE and I had only 20 hours of flying the line in the emb-120. 2) the first officer had less time in the emb-120 than I did and had only been working for the company for a short time. 3) I was flying on rtes I had never flown before and not given any information on them from the company. 4) the WX was low IFR. With this combination of factors I was having to take on about 85 percent of the work load for the emb-120. Because of this I was not able to devote the attention to many factors of the flight. One including the amount of fuel at departure time. I feel if the company should have an experienced crewmember paired with an inexperienced crewmember in assigned aircraft -- the company should also give out detailed information about the trip they want you to fly.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR FLC RECOGNIZED AN IMPENDING FUEL CRITICAL SIT AND DIVERTED TO AN ARPT WITHOUT COMPANY'S PUBLISHED ARPT LNDG DATA.

Narrative: WE HAD TO LAND AT CMI BECAUSE WE WERE RUNNING OUT OF FUEL. THE PROB WAS THAT WE HAD NO PERFORMANCE DATA FOR THE EMB-120 FOR A LNDG AT CMI. THE REASON FOR LNDG AT CMI WAS BECAUSE OF FUEL. WE DEPARTED TVC WITH 2500 LBS OF FUEL FOR ORD AND HAD SBN AS AN ALTERNATE. WHEN WE ARRIVED AT ORD IT WAS BELOW LNDG MINIMUMS SO WE CONTINUED ON TO SBN. WHEN WE GOT TO SBN IT WAS ALSO BELOW LNDG MINIMUMS. DUE TO THE SMALL SELECTION OF ARPTS WITH APU DATA WE DECIDED WE COULD MAKE IT TO SPI. BUT DUE TO ATC AND UNFORESEEN HEAD WINDS WE CALCULATED AGAIN AND ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT WE WOULD LAND AT SPI WITH 200 LBS OF FUEL OR LESS. IT WAS THEN DECIDED BY THE CREW TO LAND AT CMI WITHOUT APU DATA. WE LANDED ON RWY 32L WHICH HAS 8100 FT. THE FOLLOWING FACTORS ARE WHAT I THINK HINDERED MY JUDGEMENT ON FUEL PLANNING. WE DID LEAVE WITH LEGAL FUEL, BUT WE COULD HAVE TAKEN MUCH MORE. I WAS NOT ABLE TO GIVE 100 PERCENT OF MY ATTN AND ABILITIES BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING. 1) IT WAS MY FIRST TRIP OFF OF IOE AND I HAD ONLY 20 HRS OF FLYING THE LINE IN THE EMB-120. 2) THE FO HAD LESS TIME IN THE EMB-120 THAN I DID AND HAD ONLY BEEN WORKING FOR THE COMPANY FOR A SHORT TIME. 3) I WAS FLYING ON RTES I HAD NEVER FLOWN BEFORE AND NOT GIVEN ANY INFO ON THEM FROM THE COMPANY. 4) THE WX WAS LOW IFR. WITH THIS COMBINATION OF FACTORS I WAS HAVING TO TAKE ON ABOUT 85 PERCENT OF THE WORK LOAD FOR THE EMB-120. BECAUSE OF THIS I WAS NOT ABLE TO DEVOTE THE ATTN TO MANY FACTORS OF THE FLT. ONE INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF FUEL AT DEP TIME. I FEEL IF THE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE AN EXPERIENCED CREWMEMBER PAIRED WITH AN INEXPERIENCED CREWMEMBER IN ASSIGNED ACFT -- THE COMPANY SHOULD ALSO GIVE OUT DETAILED INFO ABOUT THE TRIP THEY WANT YOU TO FLY.

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.