fuel and diversion
 

Hi all,

Have a question: having flown in the states for a 121 carrier and then later on for a European carrier.

Is it legal in the US to land at your planned destination with less than alternate+final reserve fuel but more than final reserve?

I was always under the impression that it was not. In the EU, once inflight, it doesn't matter as long as you land anywhere with equal or more than final reserve.

For example, reaching your destination and there is an unforeseen delay(runway change, TS or whatever). In the EU(I'm sorry, I should say at my airline) it is common practice to at that point make a decision to either divert or wait(fully allowed under JAA rules). Accepting that if you wait you won't have enough fuel to divert anymore.

Without going into all the possible scenario's and discussions that can arise, under JAA rules, the fuel requirments are applicable in the dispatch fase only. Once you depart they don't apply anymore. I was under the impression that under FAA rules they applied inflight as well.

I guess I'm trying to figure out if I always misinterpreted the FAA rules or if there is a difference between the two.

Could somebody enlighten me?

Many thanks

You can land with almost zilch in the tanks (not smart). The :45 fuel reserve and fuel to alternate is for dispatch. IF you land with below company emergency fuel someone is going to talk to you no doubt (FAA or company)

Remember too.. min fuel means NOTHING to ATC. It gets NO priority handling and no special treatment from ATC. Emergency fuel puts you at the front of the line. Also, you may NOT be informed if ATC decides to declare you Emergency fuel.

What ^^^^ said

Can you explain that for me please? How/Why would ATC decide that my fuel state is critical and declare a fuel emergency?

III Corps,

Thanks for the quick reply. Under FAA rules it is the same then as JAA. Once you depart, you can decide what to do with the fuel,as long as you don't land with less than reserve ( well you can but then you'd have to talk to somebody).

Thanks again.

Doing some research a year or so ago on min/emerg fuel situations, I found that the FAA was doing some pushing to ensure airplanes 1) didn't use min fuel declarations to go to the front of the line and 2) that if there was any question about fuel status, the ATC controllers MAY designate a flight emergency fuel and MAY not inform the crew they are emergency fuel status.

The first came from one large carrier in KEWR consistently arriving from Europe with low fuel states and the FAA was not happy that they were frequently declaring min fuel on arrival. The FAA suggested they revise the fuel loads or face possible sanctions. The practice stopped.

Second, the Avianca crash years ago came about due to language problems and the F/O never stating they were very critical on fuel. The Capt's English was quite poor and he didn't understand the F/O was not pressing for immediate vectors. Anyway, it is NOT necessary for ATC to advise you that you have been designated emergency fuel.

Part of the problem is that guys will go to destination, hang around and hold and then try to go to nearest alternate. Guess what? Everyone else in the holding pattern is thinking the same thing so when you're holding for KMIA and finally elect to go to KPBI or KFLL, they tell you that they can not accept any more arrivals due to congested ramp space and the nearest available is either KDAB or KRSW and they are filling up fast. Now the fuel situation gets real critical.

And another problem was guys were declaring emerg fuel without ever having said anything about approaching or at min fuel. ?? Or guys were really miffed because they declared min fuel and ATC didn't move them to the front of the line. A search of the NASA ASRSs also showed that guys/gals did not understand min fuel declarations and were not declaring emerg fuel for fear of consequences. Well.. which is better? Declaring emergency fuel or crashing due to fuel exhaustion?

But as to directly answer your question of how would ATC know your fuel state? They won't unless you tell them and if there is a hint that you are critical, they may opt to handle you as an emergency fuel flight.

Having just one alternate and depending on it when the wx crumps is just asking for problems...IMHO

No, you can land with LESS than reserve. Reserve is just that.. reserve to use when things go wrong. You can land with less than your :45 fuel reserve. You may want to debrief the flt to figure out what went wrong and maybe file a NASA ASRS. And someone MAY want to talk to you but there is nothing illegal about landing with less than :45 in the tanks.

Got it! Thanks

Thanks IIICorps.

Would you know where on the FAA site I'd go to learn more on that procedure? It certainly is interesting.

I am not sure it is a procedure but it has happened. Controllers don't like crashes anymore than pilots and if they sense a problem, they can and do designate a flt as emergency fuel. And as said, they may or may not inform you that the flt has been designated as such.

This came out in -08.
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../inFO08004.pdf

Here is a story in BCA addressing the issue
When the Gas Is Gone | AVIATION WEEK