Minimum Fuel

[tubby linton]

I am interested in statistics of how many flights
have declared Minimum Fuel and also the service received from ATC when it has been declared.
PM me if you do not want to discuss it on an open forum.
I am a pilot who is interested to hear of peoples experiences good and bad.
I have heard it said once inbound to a large airfield in the UK

[safelife]

Inbound US airfield, reply "are you declaring an emergency?" - "negative" - "then don't expect any priority now".

[Not Long Now]

safelife, that's exactly the point. Agreed that when it came in, in the UK, the instruction was 'badly phrased' to say the least, but hopefully that is now cleared up and all controllers, and I would hope pilots, are aware of it's actual meaning. As to if it's any use or not, who knows...

[RAT 5]

ATC are a member of our team. We need to work together and fully understand one another. They tell me what to do and if it's OK I'll comply. If I need their help, as in a low fuel case, I'd prefer to be specific. Minimum Fuel: Low Fuel: that means nothing to me, even as a pilot unless I know the type of a/c and where it's intended ALTN is. ATC would be even more in the dark. They need specific information so as to make a plan and be helpful. (I used to hate it in the sim when guys with a problem asked for a 'long finals'. Just say 8nm or 10nm or 12nm. ATC have no idea.)
If I would be approaching an airfield with not a lot to spare, as has happened once and there was a queue for snow clearing, I told ATC I needed to be on approach with X mins or I was gone. They then had the information to sequence me. If they needed the same information from other a/c they only had to ask. Min Fuel & Low Fuel is too grey for me. Declaring a Fuel Emergency also has its consequences. It is likely you'll get ASAP treatment and direct as possible, but there will be an investigation and I can understand some being reluctant. However, the old adage of "it's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than being in the air wishing you were on the ground". + "If there's doubt then there is no doubt." Make the call and argue the toss afterwards.

[Piltdown Man]

I've heard many aircraft declaring minimum fuel, but as RAT has said, do not expect any special treatment until you state your current endurance or declare an emergency. As for service, I do know of a colleague who declared a "Mayday" at LHR and he was given an approach immediately. I think this will be the case everywhere. The annoying bit is that you have to play this "game" until you really believe you will get to your final reserve.

[Max Angle]

The term "minimum fuel" has a very specific meaning under ICAO so should be well understood by all of us in the flightdeck and in ATC.

For those in need of a refresher:

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/InformationNotice%202015082.pdf

[Una Due Tfc]

If you are number 10 in the hold, and declare "minimum fuel", you'll still be number 10 in the hold. Here in Ireland the 9 crews ahead of you will not be inconvenienced to accomodate you in this case. You'll be given an EAT ASAP, and informed of any likely changes ASAP. "Fuel Emergency" or "Mayday, Fuel"..... these make you number 1, but your tanks are getting dipped on arrival in all likelyhood.

I'm high level rated, but I know my colleagues in approach are well aware how important getting an accurate EAT to you ASAP is for your own planning. Unfortunately when the airport authority gets snow clearing wrong or when the fire crews have more important things to worry about, that's not always possible.

Where minimum fuel might also help you is enroute, it will make us pick up the phone to the next sector/FIR and ask for something more direct for you.

[RAT 5]

Where minimum fuel might also help you is enroute,

Interesting. My understanding, from reading the link given by MA, is that minimum fuel means you expect to land with only 30mins fuel. IMHO, en-route, this should only occur when en-route to a diversion airfield. It should not happen en-route to destination. That would mean you had already used your diversion fuel, and therefore should already have diverted. Do we all, all crews & all ATC's in all countries, really understand what "minimum fuel" means?

[Una Due Tfc]

Apparently not. I know the regulations as per the above link, IE any further delay will push the aircraft into an emergency situation, but a few years ago I had a flight calling it en-route after a wildcat French strike pushed him way off his planned route (up T9), we got him a nifty shortcut from London once we had him under radar. Maybe neither of us used it correctly...

Edit: I seem to recall, at some point in my training, being told that any delays after minimum fuel being called will result in that crew scampering for their alternate, as they were at their minumum for reaching that with 30 mins left, which I subsequently learned was incorrect. Interesting.

[OhNoCB]

Without reading the definition again my understanding was that minimum fuel declaration meant that you had committed to one airfield for landing and that any further changes to clearance meant that you might go into final reserve. This could be possible for the en-route scenario whereby the crew after a long re routing might have been able to obtain destination weather, and perhaps with knowing it has more than one runway available decided to commit to it and use their diversion fuel to get there, thus putting them potentially into a minimum fuel state.

[FlyingStone]

It should not happen en-route to destination. That would mean you had already used your diversion fuel, and therefore should already have diverted.

There is no legal requirement to divert when reaching alternate fuel + final reserve. You can always continue to destination, subject to commander's assessment of operational factors (traffic, ATC, weather, runway avaiability), as long as you ensure you land there with at least final reserve (30 minutes).

When you actually commit, and you may/might land with less than final reserve, you should declare "minimum fuel". Nevertheless, when you are sure you will land with less than final reserve at any suitable airport, you should declare "mayday".

[Denti]

When you actually commit, and you may/might land with less than final reserve, you should declare "minimum fuel".

Slight difference, when you commit and any additional delay means you will dip into final reserve you have to declare "minimum fuel". At that point it should still be fairly certain that you land with the full final reserve at the intended destination. However, any additional delay and you're into "mayday fuel" territory.

[tubby linton]

I would be interested to hear how ATC would prioritise a number of aircraft all declaring minimum fuel and then probably straight into a Maydayx3 Fuel.

[good egg]

Declaring minimum fuel doesn't give priority, in theory, so at least your question is halved.
The permutations of where the various aircraft are, runway availability, etc are too numerous to provide a generic answer to the second part.

[BizJetJock]

There's an interesting AIB report from years ago about a DC10 from a US airline that ended up calling a Mayday for fuel at Manchester. Long train of reasons why and the crew were praised for their corrrect handling of the situation. But the interesting point was the AIB analysis that said ATC were already running things so efficiently that he only gained 1 minute by being given priority! So don't expect miracles...

[pilotnik]

I've been reading through various documents and I wonder is it mandatory to declare "minimum fuel"? Part-CAT specifies that a crew must declare mayday when the criteria are met, but I see it's not the case with the "minimum fuel" call. Am I missing anything?

[good egg]

No idea if it’s mandatory or not, but alerting ATC to the potential problem is certainly not going to hurt.
If there’s leeway in the system then they may make you sweat less (although, as stated, there’s no requirement to - certainly in UK).
I know “communicate” comes way down on the list in an emergency but it could assist if crews communicated with ATC before it gets to that situation.
As such I’d recommend, even if it’s not mandatory in your SOPs, that you highlight the issue (with the appropriate phraseology) to ATC so that everyone knows the situation.
Who knows, maybe another crew has decided to remain silent even though they are in the same situation? It may prompt them to pipe up and hence provide a “bigger picture” to ATC.

Safety is what we’re all about, expedition too. But safety is paramount.

[Intruder]

I've declared Minimum Fuel at least once each approaching ORD and JFK. When I did so, I already had ready the responses to the inevitable ATC questions: Are you declaring an emergency? [No.] and What are your intentions? [At ttttZ, if I am not yet cleared for an approach, I will have to divert to XYZ.]

The key is to decide your options and when to exercise them BEFORE you make the declaration to ATC. Once you get to the decision point, then you can declare Emergency Fuel if necessary.

[pilotnik]

I am only interested if there is ANY ICAO or EASA document that compels crew to declare "minimum fuel"?