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?

 

Halleluah Seeburg and thank you

Finally an answer. I thought I was drunk or sniffing glue.

Key words in his answer.

Min Fuel - advisory in nature-no paperwork in most cases.

Fuel emergency - Request for priority and the ability to deviate from FARS/policy/operating manual up to the extent of the emergency to ensure safe arrival of the airframe. Paperwork, usually follows.

Procedures learned in the military do not necessarily apply in the Part 121 air carrier world...only 121 air carrier procedures do.
FF

 

Well if it was me over VUZ at FL290 and it looked like I wouldn't have enough fuel to make it to LAX then I'd land at BHM and get some BBQ from Golden Rule in the terminal!!!!! besides who wants to go to LAX anyway...jk

 

If you are going on a 1000nm leg as in your example, you have plenty of time to use your resources and come up with a working solution before you have to declare min fuel. There are plenty of usable airports along the way that you could possibly use to get more juice if needed. Look at it this way....You have lots of time and options. Lets say 10 options to start with. The longer you do nothing, your options will begin to dissappear. The less options you have available, the more likely a min fuel situation will be declared. Pretty soon you'll be left with only 1 option.
There is a reason we check our fuel status regularly and compare our FOB to our calculated burns on our release. Any time our FOB is less than planned at a specific waypoint or if our EFOA goes below our planned FOA, it requires an acars to dispatch letting them know whats going on. If you catch it early, a min fuel situation can most likely be avoided. ATC delays ect....are a whole new ballgame and will be dealt with slightly different.

 

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

 

I have seen this happen - so it may or may not be standard or correct - but it does happen.

USMCFLYR

 

Thanks. I came to this forum to get some exchanges so I could do a decent article on the subject without the fluff.

In reading the ARSs a number of things start showing up.
1) if you are min fuel, consider that there will be others in the same situation. You will not be the only kid on the playground

2) make sure you have the fuel you think you have before you leave the gate. This is a checklist and discipline problem but more than a few ASRs have guys saying they get airborne and find they don't have the fuel they were dispatched with or some error occurred and they pushed back with insufficient fuel.

3) often a fuel event will be accompanied by another problem and the task loading goes up dramatically. This 'task saturation' can cause additional problems.

4) pilots seem to want priority handling or for ATC to cut them some slack without declaring 'emergency fuel'. Min fuel only lets people know you are thin and while there is nothing in the AIM or anywhere else, it seems like a good idea to append the callsign with 'min fuel' when going to a new freq. And like all 'good ideas', no doubt someone will come up with a reason it is NOT a good idea.

Not to disparage any given center but DEN and CLE seemed to be the ones that most often pulled me off an NRP.

The PDX DC-8 was the event that essentially started the formal CRM programs. The Capt was so focused on the gear problem that he not only ignored the F/E's repeated warnings of low fuel, he ordered the FE out of the cockpit.

In the Avianca crash, the F/O was on the radio and never used the term 'emergency fuel' although the Capt repeatedly stressed they needed to land NOW. Also with no emergency fuel declaration, ATC did not understand the urgency of the situation.

In another thread on this forum, it mentions the problems with new pilots from other countries and the difficulty understanding them. And the Greek 737 at Helios, lots of problems there with language and different cultures in the cockpit. It happens.

 

Everyone I have ever met from BHM talks about eating at the Golden Rule so many years ago, I decided I had to visit the original restaurant. And yes, good BBQ

 

Windsor said
How far off the planned burn do you have to be to generate a message to dispatch?

And yes, P5 (prior planning prevents p*ss poor performance).

Here is another situation that is coming up in the ASRs. Dispatch gives you an alternate and crews have sometimes found they do not have the approach charts for that airport OR there is a notam which precludes an approach.

Also, in some cases, the nearby alternate is being used by everyone else and that airport gets slammed with arrivals it can't handle.

So, yes, the earlier one begins to search options, the better.

 

Well, here's stupidity applied for you, and a good example of legality versus safety.

LAX-ANC is a LONG flight, but it's covered under turbojet domestic fuel planning requirements. Considering how rapidly the weather changes in Anchorage, and that if it's really down the nearest alternate (only a factor if required at time of dispatch) is something like an hour away, that's a LOT of fuel.

LAX-PVR is much shorter, but it's covered under turbojet flag fuel planning requirements. That means you carry a lot of fuel for a comparatively short trip.

Insanity? Yessir. Stupid? Definitely. Legal? Abso-lutely!