Originally Posted by
galdian
Yes I get that.
Equally surely they cannot support the proposition that fuel exhaustion will lead to a safe/safer outcome??
As an earlier post said in regulatory talk/think they'd be happier for the aircraft to run out of fuel and crash rather than end up safely on a runway having broken minima's.
MIN FUEL call made - check. MAYDAY FUEL call made - check. Aircraft runs out of fuel, crashes and people die - well what more could the Flight Crew have done??
To finish it off - sure MAYDAY FUEL would count as one of those "Land ASAP" situations.
So: an airport you are presently holding over Vs an airport you MAY not have the fuel to get to; perhaps the regulator in their wisdom would like to publicly nominate which THEY think would be more suitable and why??
Wonder if the passengers on board would agree!
As I have written on an earlier post, I personally believe there are further considerations that should be made from the regulator's point of view with respect to alternate fuel planning, as there are flaws within the system. Diverting right at the minimum diversion fuel and not being able to land immediately at the alternate results in ending up in mayday fuel, unless the crew gave themselves some extra margin by increasing the required fuel figures "just in case". There needs to be some regulatory contigency on the alternate fuel as well, as a safety net if the crew judgement does not take all the variables into account, like it could be the case in this event.