I mean ultimately you made the decision to take payload over fuel. And it worked out fine. You really weren't denied extra fuel. They were just making you aware of the trade offs.

 

not trying to discount notenuf’s experience because I wasn’t there, but this is exactly how it’s gone for me every time. dispatch has never said “we can’t do that because of payload,” but they have said “we can’t do that without bumping up against payload numbers.”

it’s always been my call, but i can see how tone can give different feelings to the captain in the situation.

 

This is an excellent point but I did alter my SOP to accommodate not getting extra fuel. In my judgement I could do this safely with extra effort while waiting stationary. It was not the fuel but the added complexity not having it added, which is why I made the decision I did. The initial reaction was no and the excuse was provided after an additional discusion of payload optimized. The flat out no and then tone was the indicator of how further discussion would play out. My point is to show that there are situations where dispatch tries to get thier way and you as PIC have to choose to confront or reevaluate your ability to operate safely perhaps with extra effort or accepting a delay.

This is only speculation because the discussion didn't go any further but I think he had already run the numbers knowing it was close and was pleased with himself and his ability to tell someone there no need to bump pax prior to our discussion. He may have had to go back to load planning and say ...um, oops. I think this may have allowed him to save face or avoid supervisor interaction but again I don't know. It all worked out fine so maybe this is how Delta wants it done, shut engines down each time you come to a stop waiting for deice? We had min fuel for T/O by 200lbs and we never had to declare min fuel so win/win, right? We saved gas and filled the jet.

 

It would suck to be in a deposition or investigation interview and be asked “If you thought you would be tight on fuel, Why didn’t you request more?” and only be able to respond that you felt the dispatcher’s tone implied that such a request would be denied. In situations like these, it is better to get the rejection on a recorded line or ACARS.

 

If the FAA wants to talk to you about a low fuel situation, you didn't mess up on the preflight, you mismanaged the actual flight. There is already plenty of padding in minimum takeoff fuel. A payload-optimized minimum takeoff fuel amount generally gives you 65 minutes of fuel. It really isn't hard to monitor the fuel flow on a long flight and come up with a plan B if the actual fuel burn isn't matching the planned fuel burn.

 

This. They probably aren't going to care if you asked for more fuel or not. They're going to ask you why you ran out instead of diverting.

 

The issue is not really about what type of issue would trigger an investigation, but rather whether this situation could be brought up during an investigation. If an adversarial party (attorney, government, employer, etc.) is trying to find something negative about a captain's judgement, for example, and they discover that he or she had a "bad feeling" about fuel but failed to follow up on it before takeoff, they can use that to make a negative inference about the captain's judgement. This is just a matter of crossing Ts and dotting Is. My point is that we shouldn't rely on our opinions about other people's feelings when it is much more prudent to get a direct "yes" or "no" answer to a question we want to ask.

 

I would point to the min fuel for T/O number and say we had an extra 200 lbs. Or, I would have gone through that whole ground circus to taxi back for fuel if I didn't have min fuel for T/O. I had a plan to conserve fuel on the ground before T/O and it worked. If anyting I should be applauded for my excellent execution under less than ideal circumstances. I'll pin that on next to all my other Delta recognition medals.

No wonder we got new jackets the old one is tearing due to thier weight.

 

So your plan was so tight on fuel you considered shutting down during taxi to preserve ?

 

Nothing wrong with that. As long as you take off with the minimum required fuel, the FAA isn't going to have a problem with it. Putting yourself into a fuel emergency in flight has nothing to do with how much you took off with, only your in flight monitoring and decision making.