Narrative:

On this flight and several in the past; when operating long oceanic flights the crew receives significant pressure from the dispatcher; to take the maximum payload to the determent of arriving back at the final destination with a safe fuel load. This flight was no exception. Captain agreed to a fuel load of 178;752 pounds with cargo already being offloaded as the headwinds were significant that evening with a flilght time scheduled for over thirteen hours and this particular flight being 44 minutes over scheduled block time. Typically; the burn is based on an oceanic flight level of a cruise altitude that is close or over the maximum allowable for the aircraft based on the weight at coast out. But; typically; the problem remains: if you don't push the limits on requesting a higher altitude; then because of all the eastbound oceanic traffic; you get assigned a flight level in the very low thirties (FL310 or FL320). This possibility and reality on many flights; obviously burns gas at a level that is significantly higher than what is planned on the flightplan; but also; puts you into the domestic destination with an uncomfortably low fuel on board (fob). The other alternative in this situation is to simply divert to an alternate; but obviously that isn't in the company's best interest. History revels that when we first took delivery of the airbus' the flight planning program showed the aircraft starting a descent very late in the flightplan; not at all reflective of the correct altitudes assigned by ATC with airspace restrictions. This was reportedly 'fixed' a little over a year ago. Well; apparently someone in dispatch changed our flightplan; on this particular flight to reflect FL400 at an initial SID point and FL220 at the next significant point. The typical altitudes assigned by ATC are FL200 and 14;000 respectively for the same two fixes. Somehow these got changed to reflect a lower burn overall and a higher fob arrival into the domestic destination. For the last two hours of the flight; the dispatcher was insisting that data transmitted to dispatch from the aircraft was showing a landing with approximately 14K; when the FMC was showing (until the last 1;000 ft) a landing with around 12K. Remarkably; the FMC updated itself in the last 1;000 ft and showed a landing with about 14K. So; as I see it we have three problems here: 1) being pressured to accept a fuel load at our foreign departure airport that unless a flight level for the oceanic crossing is FL390 or FL400; a divert is certain if you get stuck at an altitude in the low flight levels. 2) the flight plan (at least in this case) were altered to show an unrealistic top of descent point (TOD) that; of course; shows a lower overall burn and is not reflective of realistic altitudes assigned by ATC for the restrictive airspace on the east coast. Lastly; 3) apparently the data uploaded to dispatch's computers does not agree with the information displayed to the crew on the FMC. I have no explanation for this phenomena. Very simple explanation: too much emphasis on taking maximum payload and not enough on uploading enough fuel that accounts and allows for most contingencies. Consider revisiting the three points that are raised in this report.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An A330 pilot reported that Dispatch is pressuring pilots to accept an unreasonably low fuel departure fuel on a very long flight into headwinds; with the potential for a low Oceanic enroute altitude.

Narrative: On this flight and several in the past; when operating long oceanic flights the crew receives significant pressure from the Dispatcher; to take the maximum payload to the determent of arriving back at the final destination with a safe fuel load. This flight was no exception. Captain agreed to a fuel load of 178;752 LBS with cargo already being offloaded as the headwinds were significant that evening with a flilght time scheduled for over thirteen hours and this particular flight being 44 minutes over scheduled block time. Typically; the burn is based on an oceanic flight level of a cruise altitude that is close OR over the maximum allowable for the aircraft based on the weight at coast out. But; typically; the problem remains: if you DON'T push the limits on requesting a higher altitude; then because of all the eastbound oceanic traffic; you get assigned a flight level in the very low thirties (FL310 or FL320). This possibility and reality on many flights; obviously burns gas at a level that is significantly higher than what is planned on the flightplan; but also; puts you into the domestic destination with an uncomfortably low fuel on board (FOB). The other alternative in this situation is to simply divert to an alternate; but obviously that isn't in the Company's best interest. History revels that when we first took delivery of the Airbus' the flight planning program showed the aircraft starting a descent VERY late in the flightplan; NOT AT ALL reflective of the correct altitudes assigned by ATC with airspace restrictions. This was reportedly 'fixed' a little over a year ago. Well; apparently someone in Dispatch changed our flightplan; on this particular flight to reflect FL400 at an initial SID point and FL220 at the next significant point. The typical altitudes assigned by ATC are FL200 and 14;000 respectively for the same two fixes. Somehow these got changed to REFLECT a lower burn overall and a higher FOB arrival into the domestic destination. For the last two hours of the flight; the Dispatcher was insisting that data transmitted to Dispatch from the aircraft was showing a landing with approximately 14K; when the FMC was showing (until the last 1;000 FT) a landing with around 12K. Remarkably; the FMC updated itself in the last 1;000 FT and showed a landing with about 14K. So; as I see it we have three problems here: 1) Being pressured to accept a fuel load at our foreign departure airport that unless a flight level for the oceanic crossing is FL390 or FL400; a divert is certain if you get stuck at an altitude in the low flight levels. 2) The flight plan (at least in this case) were altered to show an unrealistic top of descent point (TOD) that; of course; shows a lower overall burn and is NOT reflective of realistic altitudes assigned by ATC for the restrictive airspace on the east coast. Lastly; 3) apparently the data uploaded to Dispatch's computers does NOT agree with the information displayed to the crew on the FMC. I have no explanation for this phenomena. Very simple explanation: too much emphasis on taking maximum payload and not enough on uploading enough fuel that accounts and allows for most contingencies. Consider revisiting the three points that are raised in this report.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.