Minimum Fuel
 

There is no definition of minimum fuel in the FARs. The definition is in the AIM.
There is also no definition of emergency fuel in the FARs.
What do you use for min fuel and how is that determined?

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...:)

Min and Emer fuels are listed in the airline's FOM, I think. I would not find it plausible for FL290 making that big of a difference in fuel burn between ATL and LAX to put you into min fuel. I could see it eating into your 45 minutes worth of fuel at destination though.

This is a good question and I anticipate learning from the responses.

IMHO, I believe that minimum fuel should include enough fuel for a go around from the flare, and, after declaring an emergency for fuel, fly an expedited ILS pattern and land with enough fuel for engine reversing and runway clearing. Not necessarily with enough to taxi to the gate.

If you don't have enough for the go around, then declare emergency fuel.

Joe

In the military - those fuels are often listed in a squadron (or HHQ) SOP. For instance - our NATOPS lists 1,500# of fuel on deck. If you think that you will be on deck with less than that amount - declare EMERGENCY fuel and expect that ATC will handle accordingly. Minimum fuel is a fairly loose term for us. We all learn about it but it isn't a hard number often times. It means that any undue delay will probably drive me into an EMERGENCY fuel siutaiton. We are briefed not to expect any special handling from ATC, but a smart controller/pilot team will realize what is going to happen soon and usually there is some action taken to prevent the situation from deteriorating further.

USMCFLYR

I suspect you may be following the recent story in the press**
 

"There is no definition of minimum fuel in the FARs."

"What do you use for min fuel and how is that determined?"

§ 121.639 Fuel supply: All domestic operations.
No person may dispatch or take off an airplane unless it has enough fuel—
(a) To fly to the airport to which it is dispatched;
(b) Thereafter, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport (where required) for the airport to which dispatched; and
(c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption or, for certificate holders who are authorized to conduct day VFR operations in their operations specifications and who are operating nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964, to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption for day VFR operations.
[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19222, Dec. 31, 1964, by Amdt. 121–251, 60 FR 65935, Dec. 20, 1995]

§ 121.647 Factors for computing fuel required.
Each person computing fuel required for the purposes of this subpart shall consider the following:
(a) Wind and other weather conditions forecast.
(b) Anticipated traffic delays.
(c) One instrument approach and possible missed approach at destination.
(d) Any other conditions that may delay landing of the aircraft.
For the purposes of this section, required fuel is in addition to unusable fuel.


"The definition is in the AIM.
There is also no definition of emergency fuel in the FARs."

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../info08004.pdf

"What do you use for emergency fuel and how is that determined?"

Several factors, should be defined in your company's flight operation manual


** This is where I became very suspicious:

"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..."

Where did you determine the flight level numbers going from Atlanta to Los Angeles?


If you want something for the newspaper:

"Pilots' first concern is safety, the amount of fuel they carry to landing is based primarily on that with a degree or two of comfort level, experience, judgement and good business practices."

When is less too little?????
 

One problem with any minimum fuel planning is the trust that you really have the minimum fuel you are counting on. If you go around truly believing you only have enough fuel for an expedited ILS and not even enough to taxi in, can you count on your ability to determining exactly how much fuel you will burn to fly that procedure and, more importantly, do you trust the gauges to show how much fuel you really have.
Its one thing to base your TOGW on a company provided ZFW and add up the gauges. Its another to put your life, your crew and passengers lives on the line trusting that a gauge that reads 1200lbs really has 1200 lbs in it (especially when you've never seen less than than, say 4000 lbs on it).
Everyone has some true minimum level that that wont allow the fuel level to reach. Experience with holding, trusting ATC (or more likely not trusting) their EFC's, believing your companies fuel planning ,and harrowing tales of near (fuel) starvation, all play into our psyche of how little fuel you allow loading on your aircraft.
Remember, if you survive an accident/incident, the CP, standards, CEO, will not be sitting there defending the actions that put you before the long table. Its easy for someone else to say, "fly with less". Your a team player, helping the cause of saving weight (money) right up to the time it boomerangs on you, your employer, and your profession. Something to think about when asked to reduce your minimum to someone else's minimum.

StillLearning has it right for PLANNING fuel for a flight, but that does not apply once you have taken off. Once airborn, actual fuel on board and what you think you can do with it is king.

A common question: Can one burn into the 45 min reserve fuel? If one thinks no, then why is it required to be there.
Answer: It is a planning tool that allows options for unplaned delays or deviations. Therefore, burn it if you come across any unPLANNED delay.

Again, there is a difference between planned and actual.

As I see it, there are (at least) three levels of ACTUAL fuel planning:

1- Legal - FAR's say one must cary enough fuel to make it to the destination (or alternate). Flame out on the runway or flame out at the gate is up to you.
Example: zero at destination (or alternate).
2- Personal - Just because something is legal doesn't make it safe. Just like those above, I personnally want enough fuel for at LEAST one go around (maybe more depending on the weather).
Example: 1000 lbs
3- Company - An airline or operator might defined the minimum fuel on board at the destination (or alternate if required) which will often be more fuel than the two options above. This increases the safety margin, lowers liability, but increases the possiblility of a devert if delayed. It is the business decision that they have made, so stick to it. For my airline it happens to be the reserve fuel number.
Example: 2000 lbs

I hope this helps. Please feel free to add your thoughts...

W-

I provided the link that defines min. fuel inflight

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../info08004.pdf

here it is spelled out:

a. Minimum Fuel. [/B][/SIZE]The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) and the Pilot/Controller Glossary both provide the following definition, which states that, Minimum Fuel: [/LEFT]
"Indicates that an aircraft’s fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching the destination, it can accept little or no delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur."

Yeah, if it's VMC or high IMC, burning into reserve should be okay.

Again it's a judgement call made in the moment, not by some journalist fishing for a story.

I'm with StillLearning
 

Are you an airline pilot? If so, then ask your Captains. If a Captain, you should have known from experience. Deal with this stuff routinely and it is not mysterious nor unusual for the business.
If a reporter, investigative, etc. You should disclose. Personally would be suspicious of providing info and wacked in the press. Press doesn't like us to much. Anonymous promises are pretty weak unfortunately.
Also, ATC treats us very professionally and complies with the request from the pilots complying with all due regulations. :)

And you have unexpectedly strong headwinds. Does that work? The situation was merely to present a problem and in this case, you will be at min fuel arriving at KLAX.

But since you mentioned it, can you continue and land with less than :45 min fuel? Are you legal?

Do you use a time? For instance, some use :45 as a min fuel calculation and less than :30 for emergency fuel.

And too this will include some factors for the aircraft. Some machines will have cautions that at low fuel states, the fuel pumps may be uncovered and cavitate.

Yes, from USAF experience, familiar with 'bingo' and emerg fuels.

And yes, min fuel is a loose term and for that reason I am trying to determine what the average line pilot uses. That amount will vary but what does the average line pilot use for min fuel and what does s/he expect?

I have declared min fuel a few times and it was interesting how the controllers responded. One asked what airport was I diverting to.

Also, in the ASRs, there are some reports of controllers declaring flights as 'emergency fuel' when there was no declaration by the crew. ??

I am familiar with part 91, 135 and 121 for dispatch and the considerations for dispatch.
"The definition is in the AIM.
There is also no definition of emergency fuel in the FARs."

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../info08004.pdf



Yes, I have the PDF from the FAA on my desk. But it is an INFO for operators and not an FAR.

[quote ]** This is where I became very suspicious:

"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)

Where did you determine the flight level numbers going from Atlanta to Los Angeles? [/quote]

Suspicious of what? And FL350 is a relatively routine altitude for long distance flights and a fat 737 is not going to be much higher than that initially. I know on the Airbus we didn't get much higher than that initially.

So, what would you flight plan at? And as for the route, change it. Change it to CLT-LAX (USAir) or BUR-MHT (SW)and we will put you in a 737-NG with winglets and plan it at 380 but you can't get it due to moderate turbulence. SAN-ORD(United). I would suggest a BBJ but this is an airline forum. Does that make it better?


I

Quote:

---

f you want something for the newspaper:

"Pilots' first concern is safety, the amount of fuel they carry to landing is based primarily on that with a degree or two of comfort level, experience, judgement and good business practices."

---

Not for a newspaper and I am not looking for "airplane runs out of fuel story". The only two I know of are the United in PDX and the Avianca in New York and that is not the issue. But everyone is carrying less fuel these days than when I started a long time ago.

FWIW, with more than a few type ratings, experience in gen/av, military and airlines ops, I know what I think about min fuel and emergency fuel. I know what I will do but the story is not about what I think or will do. It is a sampling from the ranks. I don't need someone citing FARs and FAA info letters. I have that.

Why wouldn't you trust the fuel indications unless they are on the MEL? An yes, I know that many PHs say that at low states, fuel indications can be inaccurate. For instance the old -135 had a note that indications below 1500lbs were not reliable and I've seen that.

I jumpseated a long time ago on Frontier, not the one now flying but the one with Convairs and 737-200s and we took off for ABQ on a short flight with less fuel than I wanted to land with. They were very comfortable with the fuel state. So yes, some companies operate thinner than others. And some Capts take lower fuel loads than others.

So what do you fly and what is your min?

And do you frequently talk to your dispatcher before departing or do you just sign the releases and go with the planned fuel?

You would be surprised at how often I hear that you have to have :45 in the tanks when you land.

Your points are all well taken. And such arguments are what I am looking for. There is legal, personal and company as you note.

Thanks for the response.

I no longer contest your aviation prowess. I was merely providing references for you. I apologize. Sounds like you have all the infomation you need for an article.

Please keep the TCAS on TA/RA on that westbound flight at 350.

Why wouldn't it be okay if hard IFR? What is the reserve fuel?

Quote:

---

Again it's a judgement call made in the moment, not by some journalist fishing for a story.

---

Quote:

---

---

Not every 'journalist' is looking to bust someone's chops. Some of us are line pilots first and writers second. And I hope the min fuel call is not made in a moment. I know what my min fuel is before I close the doors.

Was.

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.

I understand some of the caution but as noted, I am not out to bust anyone's chops or make anyone look foolish or to write a scare story. Fuel is the greatest expense and everyone is carrying less these days. When I started, it was 'load allowable' which meant take it up to max weight.

In the ASRs, pilots declare min fuel and then divert rather than continue to destination. ?? Also, some ASRs report crews are reluctant to declare emergency fuel and then some say nothing and then declare emergency fuel. The questions arise then as to why they didn't first declare min fuel.

The few times I declared min fuel, I had to decline 'best forward' and had to remind the controllers at times I was min fuel, especially when changing freqs. I am not disparaging anyone but there are gaps in the system.

As for FL350 being the wrong altitude, my error. I will file a NASA :)

Every thing that runs on fuel will and does run out. I did it in cars when I was young and poor and the gauge was iffy. I ran out of fuel running an outboard on my dingy while transporting my family from my sailboat to shore last week, the difference being I stopped in the water and refilled with a Jerry can, not turned into a multi million dollar glider. As far as gauges go, I'd rather not trust that the last 1% of fuel is really there, when the downside of being wrong is more tragic than floating in an anchorage.

My aircraft and my company put min fuel (at landing) for dispatch at 15000 lbs and (by their interpretation) emergency fuel at 10000lbs (about 30 min). I think many capts will bingo to an alt at the point they would land at the alt with 15k. I will go lower, but not below 10k to land at alt. I will let the wx at the alt and the location of that alt along with my familiarity of that airport and other intangibles dictate landing with something between 10 and 15k.

As far as talking to dispatch. I'll do so when I feel they either could or should know something I don't have access to (big picture) or to educate them on something I think they either don't see from reports or believe they are too optimistic about. I've never had a disagreement, but than I haven't made a name for myself pushing (them) to give me fuel they didn't feel was warranted.

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

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.

Thanks.

And that 'undue delay' is also a very loose term. What constitutes an 'undue delay'. Very fuzzy.

Hadn't thought of that but a valid point.

Never met "Berto" but know him.


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.

Thanks for the input.

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?

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

No suitable airport within :45? Where do you operate?

Experience is what you get when you were expecting something else, right? :)


Interesting event and one that may not be unusual. I will recheck the ASRs to see what is there about going non-RVSM.

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!