Narrative:

I was PIC on a scheduled part 121 passenger flight from mco-eyw. The EMB120 we operate on this route becomes weight restr as a function of the zero fuel weight limitation. This is to say that any additional fuel translates into less payload. The amount of fuel derived by compliance with the ZFW restr is 2205 pounds. This is enough to fly to eyw, carry 45 min IFR reserve and 15-20 mins contingency. Eyw has one 4800 ft runway with no precision approachs, and the only straight-in approachs are ASR's. Several times this airport has closed due to disabled aircraft. A navy base is located about 5 mi away from eyw. The navy base provides a site for an emergency landing. The next landing site is about 20 mi away, mth. Mth is not an approved alternate. Mia and rsw/apf are alternates. These airports are about 45 mins away. As I reviewed the WX package which accompanied my dispatch release I noted that legally, an alternate was not required and was not listed. I elected to carry enough fuel to be able to divert from eyw to a suitable alternate without using my 45 mins IFR reserve. I do not consider the navy base a suitable alternate for a diversion due to WX. At mco I informed the station that I needed additional fuel. We completed the flight without any WX problems. However, we almost had to start holding because the eyw radar was down and they were using non radar procedures. I am concerned about the logic used to dispatch our aircraft: 1) all aircraft dispatched to eyw should have enough fuel to successfully divert without burning the 45 min reserve. 2) dispatchers should look at the actual WX and compare it to the forecast. Our operations for dispatching do not require that actual conditions be considered. 3) dispatchers should be trained to understand that safety is their first priority. Many times I have had a dispatcher immediately start talking about payload and bumping passenger. Based on the number of times I have heard this, I have a distinct impression that our dispatchers are under pressure to skimp on fuel if it might cause passenger to be bumped. 4) consideration for approving mth as an alternate.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: E120 PIC CONCERNED WITH COMPANY PROCS FOR FUEL LOADS VERSUS PAX WT PAYLOADS.

Narrative: I WAS PIC ON A SCHEDULED PART 121 PAX FLT FROM MCO-EYW. THE EMB120 WE OPERATE ON THIS RTE BECOMES WT RESTR AS A FUNCTION OF THE ZERO FUEL WT LIMITATION. THIS IS TO SAY THAT ANY ADDITIONAL FUEL TRANSLATES INTO LESS PAYLOAD. THE AMOUNT OF FUEL DERIVED BY COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZFW RESTR IS 2205 LBS. THIS IS ENOUGH TO FLY TO EYW, CARRY 45 MIN IFR RESERVE AND 15-20 MINS CONTINGENCY. EYW HAS ONE 4800 FT RWY WITH NO PRECISION APCHS, AND THE ONLY STRAIGHT-IN APCHS ARE ASR'S. SEVERAL TIMES THIS ARPT HAS CLOSED DUE TO DISABLED ACFT. A NAVY BASE IS LOCATED ABOUT 5 MI AWAY FROM EYW. THE NAVY BASE PROVIDES A SITE FOR AN EMER LNDG. THE NEXT LNDG SITE IS ABOUT 20 MI AWAY, MTH. MTH IS NOT AN APPROVED ALTERNATE. MIA AND RSW/APF ARE ALTERNATES. THESE ARPTS ARE ABOUT 45 MINS AWAY. AS I REVIEWED THE WX PACKAGE WHICH ACCOMPANIED MY DISPATCH RELEASE I NOTED THAT LEGALLY, AN ALTERNATE WAS NOT REQUIRED AND WAS NOT LISTED. I ELECTED TO CARRY ENOUGH FUEL TO BE ABLE TO DIVERT FROM EYW TO A SUITABLE ALTERNATE WITHOUT USING MY 45 MINS IFR RESERVE. I DO NOT CONSIDER THE NAVY BASE A SUITABLE ALTERNATE FOR A DIVERSION DUE TO WX. AT MCO I INFORMED THE STATION THAT I NEEDED ADDITIONAL FUEL. WE COMPLETED THE FLT WITHOUT ANY WX PROBS. HOWEVER, WE ALMOST HAD TO START HOLDING BECAUSE THE EYW RADAR WAS DOWN AND THEY WERE USING NON RADAR PROCS. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOGIC USED TO DISPATCH OUR ACFT: 1) ALL ACFT DISPATCHED TO EYW SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH FUEL TO SUCCESSFULLY DIVERT WITHOUT BURNING THE 45 MIN RESERVE. 2) DISPATCHERS SHOULD LOOK AT THE ACTUAL WX AND COMPARE IT TO THE FORECAST. OUR OPS FOR DISPATCHING DO NOT REQUIRE THAT ACTUAL CONDITIONS BE CONSIDERED. 3) DISPATCHERS SHOULD BE TRAINED TO UNDERSTAND THAT SAFETY IS THEIR FIRST PRIORITY. MANY TIMES I HAVE HAD A DISPATCHER IMMEDIATELY START TALKING ABOUT PAYLOAD AND BUMPING PAX. BASED ON THE NUMBER OF TIMES I HAVE HEARD THIS, I HAVE A DISTINCT IMPRESSION THAT OUR DISPATCHERS ARE UNDER PRESSURE TO SKIMP ON FUEL IF IT MIGHT CAUSE PAX TO BE BUMPED. 4) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVING MTH AS AN ALTERNATE.

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.