You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. If you're a working pilot, please join our free community and you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you don't want to register (or not a working pilot), you can still use the Google search box in the upper left of this screen to search all forum posts!
Actually line pilot first and writer second. I don't 'journal'. And for me it is a cockpit, not a flight deck to show how long I have been aviating.
It is not a matter of being treated professionally by ATC but I had not read or known of a flight being declared an 'emergency fuel' by a controller until I read through some of the ARSs.
And if I add my name or the magazine to the post, does that validate anything? At this point, let me say it is a known publication and I would not besmirch its reputation with a slam or goofy story.
Fair enough. Welcome aboard.
Agreed that it takes some decisions, not all simply connect the dots. ATC may know something the crew doesn't. Afterall, minimum fuel is essentially a useless ATC call by regulation. Simply telling ATC you cannot take undue delay,"min fuel" well, ATC doesn't give any airplane an undue delay <g>.
If a Capt starts saying other comments that may leave a controller to doubt the situation, then the controller has emergency authority as well.
If I fly into clouds as a non-instrumented pvt pilot, tell the controller of my predicament, and explain that I have difficulty controlling the aircraft, what do you suppose ATC will do? They may make you an emergency aircraft, the pilot may, or may not be aware of this at the time. For a good reference in your research see: Declaring an Emergency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min Fuel
?
What do you use for emergency fuel and how is that determined?
Situation:
You have been dispatched from KATL to KLAX. Your flight plan is for FL350 but due to turb/wx/ATC, you are initially given FL290. You are over VUZ (Vulcan) in Alabama, level at FL290. You run your fuel log and see that you will arrive at KLAX with min fuel. What do you do while over VUZ? (or if you want, EMB-145 KATL-KPHL.. and over GSO)
What do you expect ATC to do?
FWIW.. there are more than 600 min fuel NASA ASRSs on file and contrary to recent stories, there does not seem to be more ASR being filed. Have you filed one recently for min fuel?
FYI.. background for possible article so all input from professional aviators flying the line will be helpful. Like FOQA, all info sterilized...
Beside the FAR, AIM, I can make a decision based on my company FAA approved manuals. My employer defines emergency fuel in the AOM. The FOM defines our minimum fuel. In your example, I expect nothing from ATC. It was the responsibility of myself and dispatch (121 ops) to play "what if?" before dispatch. From the FOM/AOM I know what my mins are for landing. Will notify the company and let dispatch be aware of my calculation. Will continue and plan new alternates and let dispatch join in and get an ARTR as necessary. If situation deteriorates, then I will pick new place to land if believe safety an issue. Otherwise I will continue if calculations and circumstances allow.
If I was over VUZ enroute from ATL to LAX and it looked like I was going to arrive with min fuel, I'd do one of two things: Either stop and get gas, or if I was flying an aircraft with more than two engines, then I would shut one engine down (preferably the center engine) to conserve fuel.
Agreed that it takes some decisions, not all simply connect the dots. ATC may know something the crew doesn't. Afterall, minimum fuel is essentially a useless ATC call by regulation. Simply telling ATC you cannot take undue delay,"min fuel" well, ATC doesn't give any airplane an undue delay <g>.
And that 'undue delay' is also a very loose term. What constitutes an 'undue delay'. Very fuzzy.
Quote:
If I fly into clouds as a non-instrumented pvt pilot, tell the controller of my predicament, and explain that I have difficulty controlling the aircraft, what do you suppose ATC will do? They may make you an emergency aircraft, the pilot may, or may not be aware of this at the time.
Will continue and plan new alternates and let dispatch join in and get an ARTR as necessary. If situation deteriorates, then I will pick new place to land if believe safety an issue. Otherwise I will continue if calculations and circumstances allow.
I guess my point in the example was that early in the flight, with the current conditions, the calculations indicate a min fuel arrival. A few times going to SEA we had to declare min fuel when in the midwest and that usually caught ATC off guard. Sometimes they asked about our fuel state and we explained that according to current conditions and current calculations, we would arrive min fuel. A few times we 'un-declared' when headwinds ceased, we climbed higher or got better routing.
If I was over VUZ enroute from ATL to LAX and it looked like I was going to arrive with min fuel, I'd do one of two things: Either stop and get gas, or if I was flying an aircraft with more than two engines, then I would shut one engine down (preferably the center engine) to conserve fuel.
Trying to remember.. for a flight to the west coast, what would your burn be? 3 RB-211s sucking down 60-70,000lbs. Plus reserves.. so you are over VUZ with more than 4hrs of fuel on board and you are shutting down an engine or diverting for fuel?
We shut down an engine on the 727 coming back from DEN to east coast and proceeded to our destination (I was F/O at the time). FAA wanted to know why we passed a number of "suitable fields." I think shutting down an engine enroute to save fuel on a -121 flight would be cause for a "709" ride.
My standard for min fuel is higher than what the sop says. Come up with your own comfort level and go with it. Don't depend on some book or FOM to protect you. I see guys trying to go with the 45 minutes and then I ask them if they would be comfortable landing with that amount and most say no. Well why the hell are you using 45 minutes then? I will pad on another couple grand for my own sanity. You never know when someone is going to shut down a runway or something wierd happens, don't put yourself in that position. If someone wants to question my higher fuel load then I'm ok with that, but I don't want someone asking me why I flamed out from lack of fuel. Conservative is better. Of course the military isn't in business to make a profit, so there is a different mentality than from the airlines.
Trying to remember.. for a flight to the west coast, what would your burn be? 3 RB-211s sucking down 60-70,000lbs. Plus reserves.. so you are over VUZ with more than 4hrs of fuel on board and you are shutting down an engine or diverting for fuel?
We shut down an engine on the 727 coming back from DEN to east coast and proceeded to our destination (I was F/O at the time). FAA wanted to know why we passed a number of "suitable fields." I think shutting down an engine enroute to save fuel on a -121 flight would be cause for a "709" ride.
What am I missing?
I don't know where this thread is going, but I'll make a few statements.
First, the idea of shutting down engines to conserve fuel to "make the flight", is just silly.
Second, almost all airlines dispatch flights using precise taxi, burn, alternate, reserve, contingency, and “other” values for a specific flight. These values are customized to the specific flight (routing, altitude, temperature, winds aloft, etc.), tail number (engine analysis, and other benched fuel flows and corrections specific to the aircraft, MEL and performance “hits” such as APU running continuously or a aerodynamic seals missing, etc.).
Unpredictable weather, or changes to the route and or altitude, will influence the expected fuel upon arrival (EFOA).
Most airlines require crews/dispatchers to compute and monitor EFOA, and other “benchmark” fuel states. These are:
1) That fuel amount that, upon arrival, is expected to be at the aircraft’s computed reserve fuel (FAR :45 min) plus alternate (if required) amount. This is “Decision Fuel”
2) That fuel amount that, upon arrival, is expected to be 30 minutes of flight remaining. This is “Minimum Fuel”.
3) That fuel amount that, upon arrival, is expected to be 20 minutes of flight remaining. This is “Emergency Fuel”.
EFOA is computed before the aircraft leaves the blocks.
During each flight, crews constantly evaluate their fuel status. When any flight condition causes the EFOA to fall to “decision fuel”, i.e. we will be landing with 45 minutes of fuel remaining; a “decision” is made. This is a concentrated effort by the flight crew, and dispatch. The decision, based upon all circumstances and using due prudence, will be to continue the flight or divert.
Based on your example from the beginning of this thread, having yet not completed even a third into this flight and expecting fuel on arrival to be at “Minimum Fuel”…The only decision to be made is which airport has the best food. Because we gotta go there to get gas.
And that 'undue delay' is also a very loose term. What constitutes an 'undue delay'. Very fuzzy.
Am sure you would agree, that is why we desire experience in the cockpit.
In my Navy flying, certain regulations were written to allow judgement. Make a bad one, plenty written to either train/educate/punish. A good one was already allowed/permitted within the reg.
FAA has similiar language. It often allows one to make good, safe, rational decisions based on a fluid set of circumstances not all known before departure time. A set of dominoes. Undue delay is determined at the time by qualified operators in the system. We train safety as breaking the chain, the opposite is true, Safe, good decisions clearly must follow a chain as well. Undue delay would have to be made at the time based on available info.
Your example, headwinds. If stronger, then the chain/domino model says: Stop for gas if would arrive below calculated fuel that would put us well below company recommended min fuel. My company has an emergency fuel and would be on deck well before and would declare emergency to ensure on deck prior to that point, but would accept fuel below company defined recommended landing fuel in certain situations [VMC/open, approved alternates etc]. In some of my actual circumstances, we did an ARTR on alternates to lower the fuel necessary to safely make destination. If no alternate required, then we worked with the dispatcher to agree on acceptable diverts if the profile required as described in instance below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min Fuel
I guess my point in the example was that early in the flight, with the current conditions, the calculations indicate a min fuel arrival. A few times going to SEA we had to declare min fuel when in the midwest and that usually caught ATC off guard. Sometimes they asked about our fuel state and we explained that according to current conditions and current calculations, we would arrive min fuel. A few times we 'un-declared' when headwinds ceased, we climbed higher or got better routing.
.
My approach would not to mention my state of fuel to ATC unless
I was being vectored repeatedly off of flt plan. I hold the Capt and dispatcher accountable to carefully plan for contingincies. In your example, headwinds and alt assignments, often, when the company wants to minimize fuel onboard, should have been considered prior to departure.
An example: OAK-SDF. SVR turbulence was keeping traffic low in the west. It was known, and dispatch allowed the fuel necessary to remain low through the forecast area. When we were supposed to climb, we went non RVSM compliant (instrument problems). ATC would not approve RVSM alt. We would remain low. It was our 'problem' and though we asked ATC for RVSM relief, they were not obligated to approve for safety reasons. We then arranged a plan to land at a place company could minimize service disruption should we not meet fuel calculated to be safe on deck at just below FOM recommended landing fuel.
My standard for min fuel is higher than what the sop says. Come up with your own comfort level and go with it. Don't depend on some book or FOM to protect you. I see guys trying to go with the 45 minutes and then I ask them if they would be comfortable landing with that amount and most say no. Well why the hell are you using 45 minutes then? I will pad on another couple grand for my own sanity.
From what I have read, the recent events at one carrier was over about 1500lbs of 'extra fuel' and that was enough for a rug dance. But yes, I understand the military operates differently than airline or -91. And thanks for your service.
Quote:
You never know when someone is going to shut down a runway or something wierd happens, don't put yourself in that position. If someone wants to question my higher fuel load then I'm ok with that, but I don't want someone asking me why I flamed out from lack of fuel. Conservative is better. Of course the military isn't in business to make a profit, so there is a different mentality than from the airlines.
No suitable airport within :45? Where do you operate?
Am sure you would agree, that is why we desire experience in the cockpit.
Experience is what you get when you were expecting something else, right?
Quote:
An example: OAK-SDF. SVR turbulence was keeping traffic low in the west. It was known, and dispatch allowed the fuel necessary to remain low through the forecast area. When we were supposed to climb, we went non RVSM compliant (instrument problems). ATC would not approve RVSM alt. We would remain low. It was our 'problem' and though we asked ATC for RVSM relief, they were not obligated to approve for safety reasons. We then arranged a plan to land at a place company could minimize service disruption should we not meet fuel calculated to be safe on deck at just below FOM recommended landing fuel.
Interesting event and one that may not be unusual. I will recheck the ASRs to see what is there about going non-RVSM.
2-1-8. MINIMUM FUEL
If an aircraft declares a state of "minimum fuel," inform any facility to whom control jurisdiction is transferred of the minimum fuel problem and be alert for any occurrence which might delay the aircraft en route. NOTE-
Use of the term "minimum fuel" indicates recognition by a pilot that his/her fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching destination, he/she cannot accept any undue delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely an advisory that indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur. A minimum fuel advisory does not imply a need for traffic priority. Common sense and good judgment will determine the extent of assistance to be given in minimum fuel situations. If, at any time, the remaining usable fuel supply suggests the need for traffic priority to ensure a safe landing, the pilot should declare an emergency and report fuel remaining in minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------
We are trained, that when an aircraft declares minimum fuel, we are to advise the next sector if the aircraft is coming out of hold and is being handed off, and also management. Management will phone ahead and alert affected facilities. As a controller, I try and be accomodating, but like the above paragraph says, it's not an emergency. EFC's can change in a moment's notice, so I usually try and tell the holding aircraft what I think is going on, and an educated guess at how long it will be. Sometimes, we just don't know, especially when it's one facility shutting off another.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
