Narrative:

This report deals with an apparent problem with the air carrier dispatch flight planning database and what I think was an illegal dispatch of our flight. Our flight was several mins ahead of the flight plan and several hundred pounds ahead on fuel crossing waypoint taffy. On crossing the next waypoint redby we were approximately 20 mins behind flight plan and approximately 5000 pounds low on the fuel score. After some investigation; we determined that the distance on the dispatch produced flight plan between the 2 points taffy and redby disagreed with the FMC distance. FMC distance: taffy-redby = 508 NM. Flight plan distance: taffy-redby = 315 NM; difference of 193 NM. Based on our true airspeed of 502; the difference of 193 NM perfectly accounted for the extra time and fuel lost when we crossed position redby. Because of this; we landed with approximately 5000 pounds less fuel than planned. While I don't think safety was ever an issue; I know we left with less fuel than was required for the requirements of the flight as planned. What is even more distressing is that when this issue was discussed with our dispatcher via satphone; he indicated to us that this is not the first time that this has occurred and that dispatch is aware of a problem with the flight planning database. I am very concerned that our air carrier is planning flts with a database that is leaving flts short of fuel; is doing it knowingly; and is not alerting flight crews to a potential en route fuel shortage issue. My normal barometer of safety is 'would I want my family on that flight?' I know that my air carrier failed that test on this flight. We as the flight crew could have caught this error on the ground prior to departure. As a technique to catch just this kind of error; I normally xchk the flight plan total distance against the FMC progress page distance after loading and activating the route. While not an SOP; it has prevented errors in the past but nothing as insidious or deeply ingrained as this one. I don't recall if I did not do the xchk on this flight or if I did it and just didn't catch the error. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter indicated that the company corrected the database. Incorrect coordinates had been programmed; resulting in the incorrect distance between the fixes.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B777-200 FLT CREW DISCOVERED DURING CRUISE THAT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO OF THE FIXES ON THE INTERNATIONAL FLT PLAN WERE INCORRECT; RESULTING IN A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN FUEL BURN.

Narrative: THIS REPORT DEALS WITH AN APPARENT PROB WITH THE ACR DISPATCH FLT PLANNING DATABASE AND WHAT I THINK WAS AN ILLEGAL DISPATCH OF OUR FLT. OUR FLT WAS SEVERAL MINS AHEAD OF THE FLT PLAN AND SEVERAL HUNDRED LBS AHEAD ON FUEL XING WAYPOINT TAFFY. ON XING THE NEXT WAYPOINT REDBY WE WERE APPROX 20 MINS BEHIND FLT PLAN AND APPROX 5000 LBS LOW ON THE FUEL SCORE. AFTER SOME INVESTIGATION; WE DETERMINED THAT THE DISTANCE ON THE DISPATCH PRODUCED FLT PLAN BTWN THE 2 POINTS TAFFY AND REDBY DISAGREED WITH THE FMC DISTANCE. FMC DISTANCE: TAFFY-REDBY = 508 NM. FLT PLAN DISTANCE: TAFFY-REDBY = 315 NM; DIFFERENCE OF 193 NM. BASED ON OUR TRUE AIRSPD OF 502; THE DIFFERENCE OF 193 NM PERFECTLY ACCOUNTED FOR THE EXTRA TIME AND FUEL LOST WHEN WE CROSSED POS REDBY. BECAUSE OF THIS; WE LANDED WITH APPROX 5000 LBS LESS FUEL THAN PLANNED. WHILE I DON'T THINK SAFETY WAS EVER AN ISSUE; I KNOW WE LEFT WITH LESS FUEL THAN WAS REQUIRED FOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLT AS PLANNED. WHAT IS EVEN MORE DISTRESSING IS THAT WHEN THIS ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED WITH OUR DISPATCHER VIA SATPHONE; HE INDICATED TO US THAT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS HAS OCCURRED AND THAT DISPATCH IS AWARE OF A PROB WITH THE FLT PLANNING DATABASE. I AM VERY CONCERNED THAT OUR ACR IS PLANNING FLTS WITH A DATABASE THAT IS LEAVING FLTS SHORT OF FUEL; IS DOING IT KNOWINGLY; AND IS NOT ALERTING FLT CREWS TO A POTENTIAL ENRTE FUEL SHORTAGE ISSUE. MY NORMAL BAROMETER OF SAFETY IS 'WOULD I WANT MY FAMILY ON THAT FLT?' I KNOW THAT MY ACR FAILED THAT TEST ON THIS FLT. WE AS THE FLT CREW COULD HAVE CAUGHT THIS ERROR ON THE GND PRIOR TO DEP. AS A TECHNIQUE TO CATCH JUST THIS KIND OF ERROR; I NORMALLY XCHK THE FLT PLAN TOTAL DISTANCE AGAINST THE FMC PROGRESS PAGE DISTANCE AFTER LOADING AND ACTIVATING THE RTE. WHILE NOT AN SOP; IT HAS PREVENTED ERRORS IN THE PAST BUT NOTHING AS INSIDIOUS OR DEEPLY INGRAINED AS THIS ONE. I DON'T RECALL IF I DID NOT DO THE XCHK ON THIS FLT OR IF I DID IT AND JUST DIDN'T CATCH THE ERROR. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE REPORTER INDICATED THAT THE COMPANY CORRECTED THE DATABASE. INCORRECT COORDINATES HAD BEEN PROGRAMMED; RESULTING IN THE INCORRECT DISTANCE BETWEEN THE FIXES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.