120.4
You were placed in an impossible situation here. From BA's SOPs / orders (was it a Nigel ac?):
<<How can "I cannot go-around" be reconsiled with "no fuel emergency"? >> Exactly. He should already have been on a Mayday if he "could not" GA.
<<If when advised of your delay on first call you find yourself in the "ballpark" of a minimum fuel arrival I want to know about it. All you need say is "Roger, that will be close to a minimum fuel arrival". >>
It did say in our orders to "consider" advising ATC when we "commit" i.e. go below the capability to make the approach, GA and divert. I still do, and the Dctr seems to understand what I mean by "Dctr, FYI, BAxxx, we are now committed to land at LHR". Sounds like A'Ship...
<<If having been vectored off the stack you are in doubt about landing with minimum you declare a PAN >>
We have strict criteria for calling PAN for fuel - and it is exactly as you say. "If ac MAY land with less than Reserve - call PAN" (and Mayday "If ac WILL ...."
Does anybody have evidence to support or deny my off the cuff feeling that 30mins holding at 1500' fuel ("Reserve") equates to a GA and TIGHT radar or visual circuit? i.e. landing with reserve has the capability to GA, but with immediate Mayday and ATC assistance.
NoD