Committing when an alternate is required

[framer]

Hi there,
Can anyone point me towards any rules or regs that mention 'committing' to an airfield ( in Australia) when the current weather is below Special Alternate Minima ?
There is often talk about ' committing' to an airfield but I think sometimes this is done in contravention to the regs.
Scenario: Assuming my aircraft is equipped in a way that allows the use of Special Alternate Minima and I am inbound to YSSY. The weather at YSSY becomes BKN at 600ft, 50km viz, no wind and is forecast to stay that way. YSCB is acceptable as an alternate and I have the fuel for it.
If I am instructed to enter a hold for 20 minutes and I know I will lose my ability to divert to YSCB from the missed approach in ten minutes, what rule or reg allows me to 'commit' to YSSY and remain in the hold rather than diverting to YSCB before I lose it?
I have made the scenario deliberately unrealistic regarding the Wx conditions because I am not interested in discussing airmanship or decision making, just the regs. I also am not interested in Tempo conditions or Inter conditions as I understand how they can be applied.
Thanks in advance.
Framer.

[Wally Mk2]

Perhaps a timely question seeing as the wx atm is somewhat ordinary down sth here.
The 50ks viz is a little odd but I assume a typo there:-)

A pilot is or the word "committed" as you mention refers to when he/she can no longer land at their intended destination with the req'd fuel res intact. The time avail & the time to divert to an alt is when the above figure applies. If yr in a hold as you mention then you simply work out how long you can hold for b4 you need to bug out to yr Alt & land with those reserves, the simplest way there is to work back from yr legal fuel res on landing to where you are now (holding for Eg). The "commitment" decision is pilot based & actioned on.
So if yr in that hold as you mention for the instructed 20 mins then theoretically you can only stay there for 10 mins if you want to land with yr fixed res intact.
The 'SLAM' or any other Ldg min's for Eg higher Min's due other rwy's not avail or navaids out etc are academic really, the above applies for all.
The recent MIA Ldg's where an interesting scenario we can all learn from


Wmk2

[framer]

Thanks for your reply Wally.
So if yr in that hold as you mention for the instructed 20 mins then theoretically you can only stay there for 10 mins if you want to land with yr fixed res intact.
The thing I am trying to find out is 'what piece of legislation/regulation allows you to stay in the hold beyond the ten minutes?'
Could your above statement be changed to " So if yr in that hold as you mention for the instructed 20 mins then theoretically you can only stay there for 10 mins if you want to remain legal."

[waren9]

i cant find anything that prevents you from holding as long as you like at syd.

the only reference to inflight reqmnts i can find is in jepp which only requires that you have enough fuel to effect a safe landing plus fixed reserve.

company fuel policy not withstanding of course

[framer]

I hear what you're saying Waren , but equally I can't find anything that allows you to hold as long as you like.( regs-wise)
If you hold beyond the point where you can divert from the runway to YSCB then for at least the last part of your flight you will be committed to YSSY, which requires an alternate, and you don't have one.

[Wally Mk2]

'Framer' if you think about it staying longer in that hold (assuming yr stated conditions re fuel) then regardless of any regs you obviously can't remain in that hold beyond 10 mins unless of course you desire to land with less than the legal fuel reserves & if that be the case then you better have a good reason for doing so:-)
.............hey 'W9' there is one major consideration that will stop you from holding as long as you like, it's called fuel!!:)

I am not aware of any reg's as such (there's plenty of Reg knowing pilots in here whom maybe able to quote) that state the things yr asking as it kinda doesn't make sense, you either have the fuel to hold 'till next week or you don't & in yr above mythical scenario you don't:-) You can obviously enter the hold as ATC have instructed but after 10 mins it's all over in yr case.
The only time you can stay longer in that hold & use yr Alt reserves is when you know from a legal standpoint & a common sense standpoint for that matter is that the wx at yr original destination is now at or above yr Ldg's req's now known from say an updated TTF.
This happens quite a lot when on say a ML-PH run when fog is about & you continue along yr route updating TTF's as you go to make sure yr not going to get caught at the end of the flight in less than the min req's.
Of course all this is very subjective as the wx-man is not a guaranteed source of exact science resulting as I mentioned earlier the recent MIA Ldg's by the 'big boys' but we do our best with what we have:-)
So I guess to answer yr Q as diectly as possible (What piece of reg allows you to stay longer in the hold) that reg would be a TTF for Eg that says the Ldg min is now at or above yr req's & yr original Alt fuel suddenly becomes holding fuel in yr case:-)
Back to the word 'committed' which seems to be the fly in the ointment here we are all 'committed' at some point in any flight based on the gas we have in the tanks, unless of course the ice is running out for the first class pax's drinks:).

Regs or no regs the basics of any flt is to leave the ground for yr destination with the fuel req'd to cover all contingencies based on the wx at the time of arrival (Alt's inc). Anything that changes en-route will obviously be deal with on a case by case basis.

Wmk2

[framer]

The only time you can stay longer in that hold & use yr Alt reserves is when you know from a legal standpoint & a common sense standpoint for that matter is that the wx at yr original destination is now at or above yr Ldg's req's now known from say an updated TTF.
That is my understanding as well Wally.
If in my scenario in the first post the weather remains BKN at 600ft then I bug out after ten minutes to YSCB. If however, a TTF is issued before then stating the cloud BKN at 800ft I can remain in the hold and continue to YSSY as it does not require an alternate.
I know all this is a bit fanciful as I am trying to avoid getting into the airmanship and decision making side of things and isolating it strictly to legal requirements.
I know of a few pilots who would 'commit' to YSSY in the scenario I gave because they are confident that they'll get in. As I understand it, and until I can find some reference to 'committing' , they are then operating without the legal minimum of fuel onboard.

[Wally Mk2]

Yep there would be plenty of times where pilots have 'committed' themselves to their original destination knowing full well that it 'might' turn to poo but I guess that's up to the individual.
Legal is good we are all bound by the reg's but sometimes the legal goal posts move whilst in flt (Eg you take off with legal reserves & suddenly they say over the radio hey hazard alert Syd for Eg now req's 3 weeks holding !!) A good pilot will make decisions @ the planing stage based not only on the reg's but common sense & 'reading' a little more into the wx for that comfort factor:ok:

Wmk2

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
"T5" yes am aware of that crazy stunt but it's not quite the same thing now is it?:) I guess it was an act of defiance & he had options (land elsewhere & start all over again):-)

[thunderbird five]

Ah, Wally - you CAN actually hold as long as you like, regardless of fuel!
Boyd Munro did it in the late 80's in his Colemill Panther when the dispute was on. He'd planned to YSSY (not YSBK), ATC said Forgetaboutit, he said no I'll hold, they said fine, he held for a few hours, ran low on juice, dashed down to Goulbourn or somewhere for a top up, back up to the Bindook pattern for a few more hours worth. Can't recall where he went in the end, other than straight to the media to complain how he'd been held for literally hours:ok:

[waren9]

framer

in your scenario, i assume there was no alt reqmnt at pre flight stage

that you have fuel for canberra is a bonus. how you use it is up to you according to the regs, so long as you can effect a safe landing at all times.

if a situation transpires that at some point you dont have fuel for a safe landing having considered preflight the factors mentioned in cao 234(3) then ergo you have likely broken the law.

therefore how and where you achieve that safe landing is up to you. the net result is that any decision you make, just make sure you can justify it in court.

company fuel policies all not withstanding of course

[grrowler]

Maybe I've had it wrong, but my understanding was that committing had more to do with wx deteriorating after your PNR. ie destination alternate suddenly required prior to PNR - continue if you wish to PNR then to your alternate, however as soon as you pass your PNR you are "committed" to your destination, regardless of the wx. Simply comes down to fuel in the tanks.

Without going too far off topic, is there any regulatory requirement to have the latest TTF?

eg. Last TTF received is valid for your arrival and just above alternate minima. Even though it doesn't say so, your experience suggests it may deteriorate below alternate, but probably not below landing minima. Airmanship aside, are you required to obtain the next TTF which may have alternate requirements?

[framer]

Thanks for the input folks.
Waren what's the status/ relationship of Cao's 88 v's the CASR's 98?
My handle says I live in Ausi but I actually moved years ago and my Ausi law knowledge needs some work.
Are the 88 Cao's still the primary set of laws and the CASR's were laid over the top of them or is one current and the other not?

[waren9]

short answer is both apply. not all the regs have been superceeded yet, because casa hasnt written all the rules yet.

but thats a whole nother thread

[framer]

Cheers mate :)

[InSoMnIaC]

I havent flown in oz for many year either but i believe the rules are similar under all icao states.

The ceiling and viz for filing as alternate are only a preflight planning requirement.. Ie you need to have the altn fuel on departure but once airborne you can do whatever you like with it as long as you plan to land with final reserve.

And remember the inflight altn minima requirement becomes the landing minima.

You can quite legally nominate another alternate in flight as long as it meets ldg minima and you can land there with final reserve fuel.

Therefore you are effectively nominating syd as your new 'altn' as long as it is at or above the ldg minima.

Our company has very specific rules regarding continuing to the destination and i would imagine every operator would have their specific rules.

By the way under the new ICAO rule we are now required to advise ATC when we are effectively comitted to land by telling them "minimum fuel". When it becomes apparent that we will land with less than final fuel reserve we must declare "mayday x3 , Fuel".

[framer]

Insomniac, that is the belief that I think is incorrect when operating under Australian regulations.
Below is a cut and paste from the Ausi CAAP that Waren9 referred me to earlier.

6.1 Subject to subsection 6.2, where it has been determined that an alternate aerodrome to the destination aerodrome is required, then the amount of fuel on board an aircraft at any particular point in the flight should be an amount that is sufficient: (a) to enable the aircraft (i) to fly from that point to a height of 1 500 feet above the destination aerodrome; and (ii) to make an approach to that aerodrome; and (iii) to make a missed approach to that aerodrome; and (iv) to fly to the alternate aerodrome; and (v) to make an approach to that alternate aerodrome; and (vi) to land at that alternate aerodrome;
Subsection 6.2 is just a reference to Tempo's and Inter's.
The important thing to note in the above quote is that the requirement to maintain your Alternate Fuel is is for " any particular point in the flight". Not just the pre-flight planning stage as many say.

I am always ready to change my mindset if someone points out that I am wrong so feel free to show me why the CAAP doesn't apply or how I've misinterpreted it.
Cheers,
Framer

[FGD135]

... what rule or reg allows me to 'commit' to YSSY


There is no such rule. Whoever said that is talking out of their @rse.

[Lasiorhinus]

feel free to show me why the CAAP doesn't apply

Well, the CAAP, being advisory, is never a legal requirement.

Having said that, if you operate contrary to the CAAPs, you'd better have a very good reason for it.

[Checkboard]

Once you are airbourne, you must ensure that you have enough fuel within reason to land safely.

Scenario 1: Flying from A to B on a clear day. You take trip fuel, variable and fixed reserve. After your last Critical Point, you are committed to your destination - nothing wrong or illegal about that, right? - provided it is reasonable for you to assume that you can land there.

If you had been told of unforecast fog, or a crash on the runway then obviously it wouldn't be reasonable to continue - and you would cop it if you had to declare an emergency after continuing under those circumstances.

Scenario 2: Flying from A to B, weather at B is below the alternate minima, and you carry C as an alternate.

Arriving at B, you have made a little fuel enroute, and hold for 10 minutes as a front passes. You may continue to hold at B (burning your alternate fuel) if it is reasonable for you to assume that you can land - nothing wrong or illegal about that. i.e. You have observations/information on the weather which guarantees that the weather won't be an issue for you before you burn to final reserve.

You cop it if, in the event, you have to declare a fuel emergency for anything with you reasonably could have predicted.

Scenario 1 and 2 are effectively the same.

[Capt Fathom]

If your destination weather is below Alternate Minima, you need an Alternate. Very straight forward really!

[SOPS]

I would say, not so straight forward, as most overseas operators arriving into Sydney would be carrying an alternate, regardless of the weather. Personally, I would not commit, but go to the alternate, as for what is legal, I really am not sure.

[framer]

Thanks again.
Checkerboard. I know that your scenario 2 is totally reasonable and often what occurs in practice.
What I started seeking at the beginning of the thread, and what none of us have provided, is the rule or reg or CAAP ( anything really) that alludes to this.
Waren9 kindly highlighted that keeping Alternate Fuel in tact is only required if an Alternate was required initially as in your scenario 2.
So in your Scenario 2, where is it written that we don't necessarily have to keep our Alternate Fuel in tact
at any particular point in the flight as suggested in the CASA guidance to the rules?
Again I am quite open to changing my viewpoint on this but I would like to see it written somewhere. At this stage I'm not convinced that it's not ' normalisation of deviance' on an industry scale.
Ps, with your Scenario 2 I imagine that there would be Inter or Tempo TTF involved which would indeed allow a practical outcome to remain within the law by ' transferring' the alt fuel to Inter fuel and effectively the destination doesn't require an alternate then. My scenario precludes Tempo or Inter weather.

[framer]

And remember the inflight altn minima requirement becomes the landing minima.
The ceiling and viz for filing as alternate are only a preflight planning requirement.. Ie you need to have the altn fuel on departure but once airborne you can do whatever you like with it as long as you plan to land with final reserve.
You may continue to hold at B (burning your alternate fuel) if it is reasonable for you to assume that you can land - nothing wrong or illegal about that.
Yet not one of us can find a reference to support the above statements in Australian documentation.
Personally, I would not commit, but go to the alternate, as for what is legal, I really am not sure.
That is what I am trying to nail down. What is legal ?
I think that there are different inflight requirements depending upon whether an Alternate was required at the planning stage or not and over the years it has just become accepted ( by some) that in flight you can do as you wish and you remain within the law, when in fact, you can only do that if an Alternate was not required at the planning stage.
Looking forward to being proved wrong.
Framer

[The Shovel]

The only law or reg is that you land with reserves in tact. As simple as that.

Firstly if you arrive in YSSY with only 20min TFC holding then you don't have the legal amount of fuel as YSSY requires 20min as a minimum at all times.

As someone has said, you need to land with your Fixed reserve in tact at the end of the landing roll. How and where you achieve that is up to you.
So for arguments sake I had fuel to hold anywhere for 25min, then I would have to divert. ATC give me a landing time 35min from now, I would think it legal to burn into my diversion fuel, hold and extra 10min and land. ie-:I have a time to expect to land and will have my required reserves in tact.

Consider this. If you hold for 10min (as used in the first post) and divert, aren't you now committed to landing in Canberra, as you don't have fuel to go anywhere else?

All the above assumes weather fuel requirements are met and the weather is not below the expected landing minima.

[waren9]

dont confuse company fuel policy with the regs.

the regs simply say you must have enough fuel to land safely at all times.

framer, look at your question from the other direction. regs (generally) prohibit things. they are not usually enablers. dont look for a reg that allows what you want to do. its not possible to write a reg for every possible scenario.

you should be asking where is the reg that prohibits the action proposed? i havent found one for your scenario.

i believe some confusion may lie where company fuel policy is laid out and forms part of the approved set of procedures for the aoc which generally do go into some detail about various scenarios which we need to learn and apply. all aimed at demonstrating how, as an operator, they propose to ensure every flight has a legally defensible safe fuel level at all times. as per the reg.

thats my take on it anyway

[framer]

I understand what you're saying Shovel but it doesn't apply to the scenario we are discussing in that the weather is below Alternate Minima in the scenario.

So for arguments sake I had fuel to hold anywhere for 25min, then I would have to divert. ATC give me a landing time 35min from now, I would think it legal to burn into my diversion fuel, hold and extra 10min and land
I agree 100% as long as YSSY does not require a Wx alternate, which in this scenario, it does.

The only law or reg is that you land with reserves in tact. As simple as that.
Then how do we explain away the CASA guidance to the rule stating that the Alternate fuel has to remain in tact at any point in the flight?
What I really need is a reference to a rule or reg that overrides the CAAP, but I don't think I'm going to get it.

[Capt Fathom]

In regards the original question.

Can anyone point me towards any rules or regs that mention 'committing' to an airfield ( in Australia) when the current weather is below Special Alternate Minima

They is no rule/reg.

Apart from what airline companies may have written into their Ops Manuals.

[Wally Mk2]

'framer' lots of good info being postulated here:-) It's great that you started this thread as we can all learn or at least be refreshed but I think perhaps yr over thinking this a little with regards what's legal & where it say's as much.

Look at the end of the day you need to land with yr fixed fuel res intact (preferably with variable also) To simply put this whole thing in perspective you work back from the above. At any stage of the flight you need to land with the appropriate fuel on-board whether it be at yr original destination or any Alt you had planed at the planing stage (if it still applies wx wise), that's the legal part of all this & as has been said B4 how you go about that is up to you & on the day.
The reg's are laid out in Jepps for basic pre flight plan fuel req's. Flt fuel encompassing all flight phases (inc any Alt), fixed res, variable res, holding (whether that be for wx, traffic or any other contingencies such as airframe issues where a performance penalty has to be applied etc) & of course extra fuel for being a commander with doubt (about the wx for Eg).

We all know the above or where to find it inc in Ops manuals so a good read of the Jepps for Eg will answer pretty much all yr q's. All the other reg's CAO's for Eg aren't usually referred to in day to day operations otherwise we'd all be still in the briefing room trying to understand the at times convoluted rules in which we commit aviation under:ok:
I refer back to the recent MIA incident again. Those guys took off am sure with the req'd fuel but got caught out as we don't live/fly in a perfect regulated world as per the Reg's.
We have Reg's that will keep us as safe as possible if we stick to them 100% but no Reg's will ever cater for the unexpected, there in lies the difference between Commanders whom not only know the Reg's but know the environment we all fly in & make allowances for that:ok:.




Wmk2

[framer]

I agree Wally and it may seem like I am trying to find a reg to 'hang my hat on' but I'm not. I'm fairly comfortable with my inflight decision making and also comfortable that it errs on the conservative side.
The thread is an attempt on my behalf to gain a clearer understanding of the regs in Australia as I operate in there a bit.
I think perhaps yr over thinking this a little with regards what's legal & where it say's as much. I do like to drill down and uncover things that are new to me when I am on the ground in a hotel, in the air I'm much less interested in minutia :)

[The Shovel]

Yes it does apply in your case. And in the case I provided. "If I am given a landing time I can burn my diversion fuel". If I didn't need an Alternate, I wouldn't be carrying fuel to divert. You are now confusing Alt minima and Landing Minima.

ALT minima is a planning requirement. ALT minima is always above landing minima. Landing minima is "Go Around" minima, you can't land and need fuel to divert.
If you get to YSSY and you can land off the IAP with the weather the way it is, YOU CAN LAND! With reserves intact.

I have never seen a rule that says your ALT fuel needs to remain intact. Without reading the reg I can't comment intelligently on it. I will go reading.

edited below:
In the words of the great Leo Getts, "Ok, ok , ok".

Read the AIP and CAPP.

You shouldn`t have gone to Sydney with only 10min TFC to start with, as YSSY requires at least 20min at anytime.
You can`t commit to YSSY, you have to divert.
However, now you have diverted, I bet you are committed to your diversion airport!

[Wally Mk2]

That's fine 'framer' there are no dumb Q's when it comes to aviation especially if yr in flight!:ok:......but Capt the wing seems to be flapping like a bird!!:E

It's good to dig deep & as I said we can all learn:-)

Many years ago there was a certain Airline Capt whom used to like flying a lighty twin down to one of the Southern Islands for crays, he would often land back at his destination drome with bugger all in the tanks & was even seen taxiing in on one donk due fuel starvation, one day he never made it back along with is female pax being only a few k's from the Rwy:sad:

"KISS" is what we pilots ought to keep in the back of our feeble minds I reckon:-)

Wmk2

[Capt Fathom]

Maybe a read of AIP ENR 1.1 - 87

Alternate Requirements apply Preflight and Inflight.

It has nothing to do with the Landing Minima!

Here is the link AIP (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/aip/enroute.pdf) for those from overseas not familiar with it. You'll need to scroll to the appropriate page.

[dubbleyew eight]

Fathom if framer had set his scenario as Perth instead of sydney he would have set an entirely realistic conundrum.

alternatives for perth for something 4 engined are what?
kalgoorlie, hmmm socked in as well.
Learmonth, hmmm fuel to get half way there.
Adelaide, hmmmm....

[Captain Nomad]

I had a recent experience that may relate to this thread. An early morning arrival into a large but isolated regional airport. The forecast indicated not more than SCT cloud below alternate minima (WX, tick), flight was due to arrive more than 10 min after first light (lighting, tick), sufficient navaids (navaids, tick) = no alternate required, but a little extra fuel was carried. Check for updated forecast enroute, no change. Getting close to destination ask for latest METAR, advised that a SPECI had just been issued with cloud BKN004 (below alternate AND landing minima). New TAF issued two minutes later with BKN005 (below landing minima) to remain until a couple of hours after the arrival time.

If the flight proceeded to the destination on a hunch that a landing could be made with fixed reserves intact then maybe nobody would hear about it. However, if the flight proceeded to the destination then couldn't get visual and then subsequently declared a fuel emergency with a descent below minima to land I am sure the PIC would be asked some serious questions... In my view, it would be irresponsible to 'commit' to the destination when you now know that an alternate is not only required but almost certainly would end up being the place of landing given the slim chances of getting visual when the cloud is BKN well below landing minima. I would like to see the rule that effectively states that 'pre-flight alternate considerations can be ignored inflight' - I think I will be waiting a long time to see a reference...

With the accuracy (or lack thereof) of weather forecasts lately these 'hypothetical' situations may become more practical than we would like. Makes for good discussion!

[framer]

I would like to see the rule that effectively states that 'pre-flight alternate considerations can be ignored inflight' - I think I will be waiting a long time to see a reference
Me too.
I'm not sure if that belief comes from
A) A different interpretation of the rules
B) Confusion with other policies such as EDTO ( references to landing minima etc) or
C) Having watched Captains do it for years thinking that the Alternate Minima doesn't apply when really there was no Alternate requirement because they had Tempo fuel.

Either way it is interesting to see how wide and varied the responses have been.

[*Lancer*]

Pretty sure Fathom is on the money.

If the airport requires a fixed weather alternate, you have to either land with alternate fuel intact or divert. Sure you might then be committed to the alternate, but by definition it shouldn't require an alternate itself. A landing time from ATC isn't good enough - that's purely a sequencing thing, and doesn't change the weather (or the requirements).

The big traps present themselves with changes after PNR (e.g. Mildura).

In my opinion the situation is more grey with INTER/TEMPO holding when you're holding enroute/on descent.

[Wallsofchina]

There isn't a rule to do it because you wouldn't plan to do it.

Some years ago there was a fight at Moorabbin over this when an inbound aircraft was trying to land after the airport had been closed due to Wx.

CAA explained that if the pilot had declared an emergency then he would have been legally able to land (which he had done by eventually telling the tower operator to get XXXX he was coming in.)

[framer]

There isn't a rule to do it because you wouldn't plan to do it.

I'm unsure what that means, can you elaborate?

Logic would say do the hold, fly the ILS and land. if you stuff it up, you still have fuel to have another shot.
I agree completely....however....
Right at the start of the thread I pointed out that I was digging into the legal aspects and not airmanship or decision making. It's damn near impossible to do on Pprune but I think we sort of got there.
Anyway, thanks for the input.

[InSoMnIaC]

Framer CAR 220 states

Fuel instructions and records
(1) An operator shall include in the operator’s operations manual specific instructions for the computation of the quantities of fuel to be carried on each route, having regard to all the circumstances of the operations, including the possibility of failure of an engine en route.

The CAAP you mentioned is only 1 way of complying with the above. As stated above the operator is responisble for including the fuel requirements their operation in their Operations Manual.

If your operator decides to copy That CAAP directly into the ops manual then you have no choice but to follow what it says. Other operators might have a different way of complying

The only hard rules that I could find in the regs were in the AIP ENR section 1.1 - 97 & 98

(60.2 says to do what the operator has laid out, 60.4.1 continues on to say 'but ensure that you land with no less than fixed fuel reserve, (60.6.1 - 'except in an emergency')


60.2 Air Operator Certificate (AOC) Holders
Fuel requirements for aircraft operated under an AOC are as approved in the company Operations Manual

60.4 In-Flight Fuel Management

60.4.1 The pilot-in-command shall continually ensure that the amount of
usable fuel remaining on board is not less than the fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be made with the planned fixed fuel reserve remaining upon landing.

60.4.2 The pilot-in-command shall request delay information from ATC when unanticipated circumstances may result in landing at the destination aerodrome with less than the fixed fuel reserve plus any fuel required to proceed to an alternate aerodrome or the fuel required to operate to an isolated aerodrome.
Note: There is no specific phraseology in this case as each situation may be different.

60.5 Minimum Fuel

60.5.1 The pilot-in-command shall advise ATC of a minimum fuel state
by declaring MINIMUM FUEL when, having committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any change to the ex- isting clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than planned fixed fuel reserve.

Note 1: The declaration of MINIMUM FUEL informs ATC that all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aero- drome of intended landing and any change to the existing clear- ance may result in landing with less than planned fixed fuel re- serve. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur.

Note 2: Pilots should not expect any form of priority handling as a result of a “MINIMUM FUEL” declaration. ATC will, however, ad- vise the flight crew of any additional expected delays as well as co- ordinate when transferring control of the aeroplane to ensure other ATC units are aware of the flight’s fuel state.

60.6 Emergency Fuel

60.6.1 The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency
by broadcasting MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL, when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned fixed fuel reserve and as a result of this predicted fuel state, the aircraft requires immediate assistance.
Note: MAYDAY FUEL declaration is a distress message. A dis- tress message is reported when the pilot in command has as- sessed the aircraft is threatened with grave and imminent danger and requires immediate assistance.

60.6.2 It is a requirement in any case where an aircraft lands with less than its planned fixed fuel reserve that the pilot-in-command shall consider the event an immediately reportable matter and file the required report.

[Checkboard]

60.4.2 The pilot-in-command shall request delay information from ATC when unanticipated circumstances may result in landing at the destination aerodrome with less than the fixed fuel reserve plus any fuel required to proceed to an alternate aerodrome or the fuel required to operate to an isolated aerodrome.
Note: There is no specific phraseology in this case as each situ- ation may be different.

I think this provides the definitive answer. As it states that the pilot must perform an action when "circumstances may result in landing at the destination aerodrome with less than the fixed fuel reserve plus any fuel required to proceed to an alternate aerodrome" the implied condition of landing the aircraft with less than alternate fuel is a normal situation in flight.