Hey wake up!
they were coming to Sydney.
they had FOB ex the US which complied with the UA fuel Policy
along the way they may or may not have lost fuel behind the flight plan
they get to Sydney and Sydney weather is not the best it could be
ATC imposes on themsome holding which they don’t have the fuel for
they say they can’t accept the holding and ATC says that the only way out is for them to declare a fuel emergency (mayday)
the laconic crew says Ok and declares a mayday
Aussie rules don’t differentiate between a mayday because they can’t accept holding and an I’m about to crash and burn scenario
hence the fireys and the ambos
so they proceed as per almost normal and land without the holding
the media want to know why there wasn’t a crash
ATC wants to know why they have enough fuel to taxy to the gate
Epithaph: It would have been a no drama operation if there was no holding into Sydney at that time.
PS holding into Sydney is advisory not mandatory.
PPS Williamtown would only have been available as an emergency airport ergo there was no emergency except for the holding imposed on the flight
Solution:
option 1 make holding fuel mandatory. Not a desired solution
option 2 have a category for a long distance flight to be able to declare a position where when the flight was airborne they met the legal requirements but the situation changed in flight, holding became a requirement, this could be waived without declaring a full emergency (mayday). The simple result was a removal of the holding requirement without the associated dramas, A practical solution.