Originally Posted by
Min Fuel
One of the things coming through reading the more than 600 ARSs is the reluctance for crews to declare min fuel and even more so to declare emergency fuel. In some ASRs the crews obviously know the difference between min and emergency but want special handling without declaring emergency. ??
Do you ask them to change t0 7700 or do they remain on the same squawk.
Anyone ever precede the min or emergency fuel declaration with Pan or Mayday?
Also, what happens when you give a reroute and the pilot refuses the clearance saying it will put them min fuel? Do they have to declare emergency fuel to stay on the original route.
I'm on an NRP and I get cleared direct. I don't want it because it will take me off the planned route for winds. I know we are supposed to be allowed to stay on NRPs but more than a few times, I have been pulled off and re-routed. What options do I have to refuse the re-route? Especially if it will cost me extra fuel and possibly put me min fuel?
Min Fuel,
You bring up some excellent points.
In my opinion, crews are reluctant to publicly admit they have a low fuel situation. Maybe it's their ego, maybe lack of knowledge, maybe a degradation of situational awareness, however for whatever the reason; their desire to keep it a secret only limits their resources (ATC, other aircraft, their company) to resolve their predicament.
In the case of the Avianca crash in Forest Hills, NY this was attributed to language barriers, incorrect terminology of their situation, and a classic display that most accidents result from a chain of events.
Prior to that, United lost a DC-8 near Portland (PDX) due to a dysfunctional crew, a lack of urgency to correct their low fuel situation which can be blamed on a lack of situational awareness.
Which leads me to your next point...NRP routings.
In theory, your dispatcher should plan your route of flight using an NRP routing. The software he/she uses is fed parameters like winds aloft, known or forecast traffic and weather delays, NOTAMs, etc. to come up with the most efficient route between A to B. For example, when flying the route JFK to LAX, there are numerous routings, if my memory serves me correct the number is upwards to 30 different NRP routes.
Also, in theory when on an NRP route, ATC is not supposed to vector you off course for other traffic. However, ATC's job is to separate the traffic and in some cases vectoring an NRP aircraft or assigning a less than optimum altitude is what ATC has to do to ensure traffic separation.
Taken one step further, if ATC gives you direct routing, it may be because of conflicting traffic or they may be trying to do you a favor. Direct routings may be more prevalent based on certain times of the day or certain agreements between ATC facilities, or in this author's opinion, which airline you work for.
With the clearance of a direct routing, you may (politely) ask to stay on the NRP. In these days and times of FMC aircraft, it is possibly to review a direct routing by entering it in Route 2 or Secondary Flight plan with the planned winds aloft and abeam points to see what kind of effect the routing will have vis-a-vis the NRP/filed route.
Finally, when you are given a flight plan, it is just that, a plan. It is not set in stone. This where the term, "inflight managers" comes in to play.
Just my two cents worth, the amount of gas you have may vary,
FF
----------------------------------
Vodka - Helping airline pilots get out on the dance floor since 1907