Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise; Descent; Landing; Parked
Airspace: Class A ZDC; Class B BWI
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC; TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: As Captain on this flight; I reviewed the Dispatch Release as part of normal pre-flight duties. Due to the length of flight (4+03); enroute mountain wave; and a flight plan that calculated an impossible descent profile (intersection at FL 390 vs. FL 250 per the arrival) and taken in the larger context that new contingency fuel planning by this airline had left me needing additional fuel on several prior legs; I notified Dispatch of my concerns about reaching our destination across country; around mountain wave activity; at night with strong southerly winds at arrival airport; BWI (which might force a runway change) with only 5;400 LBS of fuel. The Dispatcher assured me that the plan was solid; but did not have concerns if I needed more fuel. I added 1;100 LBS to the fuel load to compensate for any variables mentioned above. As the pilot not flying on this leg; the pilot flying and I agreed to fly this leg as closely to the plan as would be allowed by traffic; weather; and performance. We were fortunate in that the departure; enroute; and descent phases went as close to the flight plan as I've seen. We climbed directly to our initial cruising altitude of FL370 and climbed to our planned final altitude of FL390 precisely where the flight plan called. The only deviation from the flight plan was a directed speed increase in the descent from Center to 300 KIAS. We were within 100 LBS of planned fuel burn at both [the step climb level off] and [a VOR] along the route. We were vectored directly off the arrival by Approach to the right downwind to base for the Visual Approach to 33L. We did not experience any extended vectors or unplanned/early descents during the entire leg. We arrived at the destination with 5;100 LBS indicated. Had we not added additional fuel prior to departure; our arrival fuel would have likely been very close to our Company policy of 'Minimum Fuel' (landing with less than 4;000 LBS remaining). If we had experienced any other typical change in path (delayed climb/early descent for traffic; lower altitude for weather/turbulence; speed reduction/vectors on approach) with the planned fuel; we would have certainly had to declare 'Minimum Fuel.' Anecdotally; this has been happening with alarming frequency and has me concerned there is an error in our fuel planning software or algorithms. To offer a frame of reference; prior to this last week; I have added fuel above the flight plan Dispatch Release once every few weeks to even a few months. I added fuel four times on my last three-day sequence and landed with less than flight planned arrival fuel on half of the legs that remained. I suspect a systemic problem exists and until that is solved; strict and diligent review of the Releases will be necessary to mitigate gate returns and diversions due to fuel.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain added 1;100 LBS of fuel and landed with the flight plan calculated fuel remaining but would have been at Company minimum fuel if not for the extra fuel upload. The company fuel planning software is flawed.