Narrative:

Landed with 8500 pounds fuel, minimum FAA reserve planned is 14800 pounds for B747. Flight had been re-released from a point 50 NM east of yarmouth, nova scotia, to jfk, IFR (no alternate required) with planned arrival fuel of 16600 pounds. Shortly after the re-release, the headwind increased dramatically, resulting in a gndspd of as much as 100 KTS less than the forecast. This severe wind lasted down to lower altitudes, and did not drop off until the low teens. On approach, we received moderate extended vectoring which resulted in our being turned on to an 18 NM final for runway 31R -- 3 mi further out than ideal. We were also required to slow and dirty aircraft prior to ideal point of just outside localizer OM. The wind bust primarily, caused most of the extra fuel burn, and the approach vectoring contributed to our landing with 8100 pounds less than planned arrival fuel, and 6300 pounds less than the planned FAA minimum. Touchdown fuel was 8500 pounds. No emergency was declared, and no special handling was given. ATC was aware of our 'concerned' fuel situation, and of the fact that the #4 engine had been shut down earlier, due to loss of oil quantity, and subsequent fluctuation of the oil pressure below 35 pounds psi, as per SOP. Emergency equipment was called out at jfk, as per jfk procedure. I had not requested it for our flight. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: captain reporter readily says that the report was submitted for the ASRS immunity and he landed at jfk with 6300 pounds less fuel than far minimum. In his report mention was made about an engine being shut down, and the dispatcher had also submitted a report noting the shut down engine. Reporter's primary concern was that there is no intermediate level of handling low fuel aircraft. He believes that the FAA should have the latitude to give some level of priority to low fuel sits and not require the flight crew to declare an emergency. Pilots are reluctant to declare an emergency. First, unless it is an immediate necessity to land, their perception is that it's not an emergency. Second, they hate paperwork and declaring an emergency generates paperwork. This flight crew had shut down the #4 engine because of loss of oil, but at that time had adequate fuel and were re-dispatched. Then, the winds changed dramatically resulting in extra burn. Also, the extra drag from the displaced rudder, due to the engine shutdown contributed to the higher fuel burn, upon arrival into the jfk area they were given extensive vectors at low altitude also contributing to the low fuel. Their dispatcher had called ATC requesting priority handling. Reporter also questions why the FARS required vary from air carrier to air carrier. For example: he says one air carrier block far fuel is 11500 pounds for the B747 and his air carrier requires 14800 pounds.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT EQUIP PROB. ENG SHUTDOWN LOSS OF OIL LANDED WITH LOW FUEL.

Narrative: LANDED WITH 8500 LBS FUEL, MINIMUM FAA RESERVE PLANNED IS 14800 LBS FOR B747. FLT HAD BEEN RE-RELEASED FROM A POINT 50 NM E OF YARMOUTH, NOVA SCOTIA, TO JFK, IFR (NO ALTERNATE REQUIRED) WITH PLANNED ARR FUEL OF 16600 LBS. SHORTLY AFTER THE RE-RELEASE, THE HEADWIND INCREASED DRAMATICALLY, RESULTING IN A GNDSPD OF AS MUCH AS 100 KTS LESS THAN THE FORECAST. THIS SEVERE WIND LASTED DOWN TO LOWER ALTS, AND DID NOT DROP OFF UNTIL THE LOW TEENS. ON APCH, WE RECEIVED MODERATE EXTENDED VECTORING WHICH RESULTED IN OUR BEING TURNED ON TO AN 18 NM FINAL FOR RWY 31R -- 3 MI FURTHER OUT THAN IDEAL. WE WERE ALSO REQUIRED TO SLOW AND DIRTY ACFT PRIOR TO IDEAL POINT OF JUST OUTSIDE LOC OM. THE WIND BUST PRIMARILY, CAUSED MOST OF THE EXTRA FUEL BURN, AND THE APCH VECTORING CONTRIBUTED TO OUR LNDG WITH 8100 LBS LESS THAN PLANNED ARR FUEL, AND 6300 LBS LESS THAN THE PLANNED FAA MINIMUM. TOUCHDOWN FUEL WAS 8500 LBS. NO EMER WAS DECLARED, AND NO SPECIAL HANDLING WAS GIVEN. ATC WAS AWARE OF OUR 'CONCERNED' FUEL SIT, AND OF THE FACT THAT THE #4 ENG HAD BEEN SHUT DOWN EARLIER, DUE TO LOSS OF OIL QUANTITY, AND SUBSEQUENT FLUCTUATION OF THE OIL PRESSURE BELOW 35 LBS PSI, AS PER SOP. EMER EQUIP WAS CALLED OUT AT JFK, AS PER JFK PROC. I HAD NOT REQUESTED IT FOR OUR FLT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: CAPT RPTR READILY SAYS THAT THE RPT WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE ASRS IMMUNITY AND HE LANDED AT JFK WITH 6300 LBS LESS FUEL THAN FAR MINIMUM. IN HIS RPT MENTION WAS MADE ABOUT AN ENG BEING SHUT DOWN, AND THE DISPATCHER HAD ALSO SUBMITTED A RPT NOTING THE SHUT DOWN ENG. RPTR'S PRIMARY CONCERN WAS THAT THERE IS NO INTERMEDIATE LEVEL OF HANDLING LOW FUEL ACFT. HE BELIEVES THAT THE FAA SHOULD HAVE THE LATITUDE TO GIVE SOME LEVEL OF PRIORITY TO LOW FUEL SITS AND NOT REQUIRE THE FLC TO DECLARE AN EMER. PLTS ARE RELUCTANT TO DECLARE AN EMER. FIRST, UNLESS IT IS AN IMMEDIATE NECESSITY TO LAND, THEIR PERCEPTION IS THAT IT'S NOT AN EMER. SECOND, THEY HATE PAPERWORK AND DECLARING AN EMER GENERATES PAPERWORK. THIS FLC HAD SHUT DOWN THE #4 ENG BECAUSE OF LOSS OF OIL, BUT AT THAT TIME HAD ADEQUATE FUEL AND WERE RE-DISPATCHED. THEN, THE WINDS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY RESULTING IN EXTRA BURN. ALSO, THE EXTRA DRAG FROM THE DISPLACED RUDDER, DUE TO THE ENG SHUTDOWN CONTRIBUTED TO THE HIGHER FUEL BURN, UPON ARR INTO THE JFK AREA THEY WERE GIVEN EXTENSIVE VECTORS AT LOW ALT ALSO CONTRIBUTING TO THE LOW FUEL. THEIR DISPATCHER HAD CALLED ATC REQUESTING PRIORITY HANDLING. RPTR ALSO QUESTIONS WHY THE FARS REQUIRED VARY FROM ACR TO ACR. FOR EXAMPLE: HE SAYS ONE ACR BLOCK FAR FUEL IS 11500 LBS FOR THE B747 AND HIS ACR REQUIRES 14800 LBS.

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.