Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
Crew tend to mention tons or pounds of fuel, while controllers are interested in minutes remaining. "2 Tons" means little to ATC.
Agreed that time remaining is what matters for both crew and ATC in the event of a "low fuel" situation. The quantity of fuel in pounds or kilos is probably only relevant to rescue fire fighting personnel in the event of a planned emergency landing. It's up to pilots to communicate fuel status in the form relevant to the situation. If necessary, I suppose ATC could request the pilot state it in the form required.
One thing the FAA did is to incorporate the term "minimum fuel advisory" into the US pilot/controller glossary. I would expect most ATCs appreciate being informed in advance when any undue delay will result in a low fuel emergency being declared. If ATC can accommodate the low fuel aircraft without the special handling then there might not be any need for an "emergency" and the cascading effects on the surrounding airspace that go with it. If a "pan-pan" for low fuel is the closest equivalent in ICAO lexicon, then it seems to be the appropriate notification to make. Another poster alluded to some ATCs being unresponsive to a PAN-PAN, so in this case a mayday call might be the only remaining option open to the flight crew.
What happened in this particular incident is still somewhat unclear due to the lack of reliable information source, but this Chinese official's accusation of "lying" on the part of the Qatar crew is concerning. I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect the language barrier is at play here.
Absent any credible contradictory information, ATC and the Qatar crew seem to have handled the occurrence as they should. The local airliner crew's role in this questionable at best and a blatant violation of right of way and compliance with ATC instructions regulations at worst. I suppose having the ATC audio and a reliable translator would be of some value in any attempt for us outsiders to make an informed judgment.