NoD,
I don't blame Antigua for BA policy. I dare say that 2.5 mile spacing on final is ATC policy - everyone's under pressure these days.
But that's no reason to all but promote the policy here and, no doubt, on the flight deck in Antigua's case. If I'm a bit less antagonistic than in my last post, there's no straight answer to your questions - all I'm asking for is a little common sense. I just don't think planning that tightly on fuel, even on a nice day, is sensible.
Even Antigua says he will carry more fuel when the weather is forecast to be poor - but I wonder how much. Just enough to cater for the holding that he, with his years of experience, thinks is reasonable for the weather conditions?
OK, I don't know how many tonnes of fuel are needed for a go-around and a normal radar circuit or whatever is likely at the destination airport, but I would say it's sensible to try and have that much as you establish on the ILS at the end of any flight. I do know that every tonne that you land with burnt more fuel during the flight but the balance is what safety is all about.
If you didn't carry emergency oxygen on every flight you could save a lot of fuel too, and let's face it, it's not used that often (as many flights as end up doing a go-around?), but few people would advocate doing away with it because on the day you need it, you want it to be there.
The post that started all this off seems to me to demonstrate a lack of this simple common sense on Antigua's part - for such tight fuel planning - and on the controller's - for taking exception (if that's what happened and bear in mind we probably haven't heard the controller's side of the story) to the legitimate request for some extra space.
At what point should a pilot call PAN and MAYDAY - common sense says when the situation dictates. I guess PAN when the situation looks like it isn't going to pan out - excuse the expression - the way everyone expected and fuel may become a problem and MAYDAY when it is a problem. In any case, with a fuel shortage, unless there is some other problem that means fuel is being burnt at a greater rate than expected (or is not available), the situation will deteriorate through PAN to MAYDAY. And I would be surprised if you didn't get the same priority for a PAN as for a MAYDAY as soon as you called it. I don?t think a 'Low Fuel' call adds much - you'd get the same reaction from ATC as for a PAN or MAYDAY - and when the UK rules on such things were not so clear, Low fuel calls appeared to be blatantly abused by some carriers.
What are the other options? Keep ATC in the picture. It should already be obvious that on the face of it, I think an MOR was an overreaction in this case - but hopefully, in other cases, it will enable the controller to plan the traffic taking account of all the relevant information.
I know this all sounds a bit idealistic but I don't have any other answers right now - I just know I don't like the ones I'm hearing.