B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 255; Flight Crew Total 19225; Flight Crew Type 2087
Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Airspace Structure; Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
During cruise and prior to receiving our STAR clearance; a thorough arrival briefing was accomplished which highlighted standard items such as but not limited to airport weather; arrival delays; preferred runway; fuel; runway conditions; landing/go around performance; runway exit plan; etc. Prior to descent; ATC assigned the RNAV arrival with the shortest runway at the airport. Given the current and forecast weather conditions at the airport (rain/wind); the crew agreed (pre-briefed) that landing on the longer; parallel runway would be the wiser; safer choice. After receiving the arrival clearance and runway assignment; we advised ATC that we would 'require' the longer runway for 'operational' reasons. To use that runway; we were told we would be subject to a delay of 6 minutes. We reported that a six minute delay would be acceptable; but shortly after; the controller issued a landing time which actually doubled the delay to twelve to thirteen minutes! We queried the inconsistency and became highly suspicious of the ATC delay times being given. After a brief crew discussion; we reported back that we could not accept the extra delay due to fuel. ATC then advised us that if we still wanted the longer runway avoiding delay; we were required to declare minimum fuel which in subsequent transmissions with this controller evolved into a requirement for a Pan; Pan; Pan and then ultimately a [low] fuel declaration. As a crew; we solidly did not agree with the controller's assessment for the use of the extreme declarations; but because we were getting busy and closer in to the airport; we did not have time to continue sorting out the differences with the controller while airborne. Ultimately; we concluded; that if the declaration is what ATC truly needed from us to land on the 'long' runway; then we would comply and make the declaration. This particular aircraft is a high burner. I flew it recently and our fuel score was down approximately 3;500 pounds at the end of that flight. Over the course of this flight; our fuel also trended negative nearly as much as the previous flight; (same aircraft and same leg). Hours in advance of our arrival; the Captain and I discussed and coordinated with Dispatch all concerns and possible strategies regarding the negative fuel trend; arrival delays; diversion options; re-dispatch; as well as ensuring ATC would be in the loop with our tight fuel status upon arrival. Also; while on break; the relief crew continued to work in the same vein to ensure the safe; professional; and successful conclusion of our flight and mission. The flight landed safely without incident and parked at the gate with 14;000 pounds fuel remaining.
Our flight had a curfew time over the arrival fix. In order to comply with this time; the crew was asked to delay the flight resulting in non-normal operations and additional work load like dealing with the complications of a lower cost index and dealing with scheduling concerns with passengers. We delayed our takeoff as requested. I went to the bunk after an otherwise normal departure and climb. After sleeping approximately 6 1/2 hrs; the Captain was concerned about fuel flow relative to the flight plan. We had been burning 3-700 pounds per hour more than planned and even though the FMC calculated a reasonable FOD [Fuel Over Destination] that number continued to decrease. The other First Offier and I have a combined 6;000 plus hours in type and we assured him we would take a good look at it and get back to him with an update. The Captain was very engaged throughout the flight.For the next 6 hours; I worked with Dispatch and the ATC desk. We worked every possible angle and managed to stop the bleeding at about -2;800 pounds less than planned. Wisely; the Captain had decided to add 1;600 pounds prior to departure and this left us reasonably comfortable but less than planned FOD [Fuel Over Destination]. Center was not cooperative (including a request to descend which we were unable to accept) with any route/altitude changes 'due to traffic'. This put us in a precarious position and this needs further investigation since as soon as we were able to get under NADI control; we were able to get a climb and block altitude of 38;000 to 40;000 feet.The ATIS was calling for the use of a runway with a 17 knot tailwind. I knew that was not going to work for us and we had to start thinking about using the opposite runway. The ATIS seemed to stop producing updates for a period of time and WSI weather was indicating winds out of the south gusting up to 30 Knots. The weather was low ceilings cloudy and rainy.When the time came for ATC to sequence us on our runway; they offered '16L- no delay' or '16R [with] 10 minute delay'. The numbers for [Runway] 16L showed a 400 feet buffer for brakes 4 and 1;000 [feet] plus for MAX. The Captain is relatively new to the aircraft and he wanted [Runway] 16R with no delay due to fuel concerns. They got back to us and said the best we could get was a 6 minute delay for [Runway] 16R. We accepted this. 5-10 minutes later; Approach said 'expect touchdown at XX'. We were now facing a 13 minute delay to [Runway] 16R. Bait and switch? The Captain said he couldn't accept this and the response from Approach was to recommend we declare a Mayday if we insist on [Runway] 16R. After much cockpit discussion; we decided to take the most conservative of the opinions in the cockpit which was [Runway] 16R. We landed safely with 15;000 pounds of fuel over destination. The passengers; crew and ground personnel were safe; no damage; and risks were effectively mitigated.
B787 flight crew reported fuel concern enroute to YSSY was exacerbated when ATC required a declaration of minimum fuel in order to avoid a delay.