 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
The reporter perceived the company was shading the company WX forecast to accommodate using an alternate sufficiently close to justify a light fuel load rather than use the NWS forecast.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 325400 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199604 |
| Day | Sun |
| Local Time Of Day | 0001 To 0600 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : atl |
| State Reference | GA |
| Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Navigation In Use | Other Other |
| Flight Phase | ground : preflight |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : flight engineer pilot : commercial pilot : cfi |
| ASRS Report | 325400 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
Flight plan generated by flight control for this international flight listed the closest possible alternate airport as the designated alternate. Destination forecast had been inserted by company meteorology, and was more optimistic than the national WX service forecast for the alternate (which was less than 20 mi away). Using the NWS forecast, I don't believe the alternate met alternate minimums. The dispatcher apparently applied the company forecast to the destination 'area,' so that he could use the close alternate and carry less fuel on the flight. (Even then I'm not sure alternate minimums requirements were satisfied.) some severe WX moved through the area while we were still an hour or two out, but was east of the destination airport and not a factor when we landed. The NWS forecast was more accurate, as I recall. In summary, flight operations/flight control management's emphasis on fuel conservation to the dispatchers may be encroaching on our highest stated priority, which is safety.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: THE RPTR PERCEIVED THE COMPANY WAS SHADING THE COMPANY WX FORECAST TO ACCOMMODATE USING AN ALTERNATE SUFFICIENTLY CLOSE TO JUSTIFY A LIGHT FUEL LOAD RATHER THAN USE THE NWS FORECAST.
Narrative: FLT PLAN GENERATED BY FLT CTL FOR THIS INTL FLT LISTED THE CLOSEST POSSIBLE ALTERNATE ARPT AS THE DESIGNATED ALTERNATE. DEST FORECAST HAD BEEN INSERTED BY COMPANY METEOROLOGY, AND WAS MORE OPTIMISTIC THAN THE NATIONAL WX SVC FORECAST FOR THE ALTERNATE (WHICH WAS LESS THAN 20 MI AWAY). USING THE NWS FORECAST, I DON'T BELIEVE THE ALTERNATE MET ALTERNATE MINIMUMS. THE DISPATCHER APPARENTLY APPLIED THE COMPANY FORECAST TO THE DEST 'AREA,' SO THAT HE COULD USE THE CLOSE ALTERNATE AND CARRY LESS FUEL ON THE FLT. (EVEN THEN I'M NOT SURE ALTERNATE MINIMUMS REQUIREMENTS WERE SATISFIED.) SOME SEVERE WX MOVED THROUGH THE AREA WHILE WE WERE STILL AN HR OR TWO OUT, BUT WAS E OF THE DEST ARPT AND NOT A FACTOR WHEN WE LANDED. THE NWS FORECAST WAS MORE ACCURATE, AS I RECALL. IN SUMMARY, FLT OPS/FLT CTL MGMNT'S EMPHASIS ON FUEL CONSERVATION TO THE DISPATCHERS MAY BE ENCROACHING ON OUR HIGHEST STATED PRIORITY, WHICH IS SAFETY.
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.