Use of "minimum fuel" In UK airspace

[C.M]

When reading the following procedure :

''UK fuel shortage declaration : Controllers in UK are not required to provide priority to pilots who suggest they are becoming short on fuel , or have declared "MINIMUM FUEL" .
If "MINIMUM FUEL" has been declared , then the controller will ask pilots to confirm whether or not they are declaring an emergency after confirming to the pilots the estimated delay expected for holding or track milage if vectored."

By reading the above , paying attention to the 'not required' I take it that that there could be occasions where a UK controller would handle a ''minimum fuel'' declaration as it would have been dealt in the rest of Europe (giving priority ). Why almost force someone to declare emergency in an airport with minimum inbound traffic ?

[chevvron]

Basically it's to deter unsrcupulous operators from 'queue jumping' if there are delays to arrivals.
So what's the problem with declaring an emergency if you are genuinely short of fuel?

[Smokey Lomcevak]

Surely they should occur at completely different times?

Minimum fuel = we can absorb the delay that as stated, but we will burn alternate fuel to do so; emergency = the goal posts have moved, and we are unable to absorb the new delay or divert without using some final reserve fuel.

Regerding fully serviceable aircraft, I can't think of a scenario where one would have to declare an emergency without having made a minimum fuel call some time previous. Is there one?

[C.M]

So what's the problem with declaring an emergency if you are genuinely short of fuel?

The question is different here . Why declare an emergency if i am not in emergency ? I would be in emergency if i was estimating that i would be landing with less than final reserve fuel (FRF) . As long as my current clearance allows me to land above my FRF then i am not in emergency and thus I avoid a lot of headache after i land ( i really don't think you can get away with not having over the authorities visiting you once you state mayday )
So as i said if you are running short of fuel but still estimating that you are landing with more fuel than your FRF , then you would be using ''minimum fuel" to tell to ATC that basically you have committed to land at a specific airport and any deviation from the existing clearance might lead to actually landing with less than FRF. Officially , stating 'minimum fuel' is not an emergency declaration.
I understand the rational of the UK system but it would make sense to be used in very busy terminal areas . I want to confirm that in a non busy area the declaration of "minimum fuel" could be dealt as in the rest of europe

[terrain safe]

The question is different here . Why declare an emergency if i am not in emergency ? I would be in emergency if i was estimating that i would be landing with less than final reserve fuel (FRF) . As long as my current clearance allows me to land above my FRF then i am not in emergency and thus I avoid a lot of headache after i land ( i really don't think you can get away with not having over the authorities visiting you once you state mayday )
So as i said if you are running short of fuel but still estimating that you are landing with more fuel than your FRF , then you would be using ''minimum fuel" to tell to ATC that basically you have committed to land at a specific airport and any deviation from the existing clearance might lead to actually landing with less than FRF. Officially , stating 'minimum fuel' is not an emergency declaration.
I understand the rational of the UK system but it would make sense to be used in very busy terminal areas . I want to confirm that in a non busy area the declaration of "minimum fuel" could be dealt as in the rest of europe

It would be dealt with in the same manner wherever you are. You may be going to a busy TMA but at 3AM so it is quiet now or a quiet airport that is suddenly busy with lots of diversions. Therefore the expected roles are reversed. So the same rule everywhere. If you want to blame someone, try the pilots and airlines who abused the system in the past.

[zonoma]

You tell me you are "minimum fuel" and I will tell you the most accurate delay you can currently expect, if that is unacceptable then I would expect you to declare an emergency and then you will get priority.

[KKoran]

The question is different here . Why declare an emergency if i am not in emergency ? I would be in emergency if i was estimating that i would be landing with less than final reserve fuel (FRF) . As long as my current clearance allows me to land above my FRF then i am not in emergency and thus I avoid a lot of headache after i land ( i really don't think you can get away with not having over the authorities visiting you once you state mayday )
So as i said if you are running short of fuel but still estimating that you are landing with more fuel than your FRF , then you would be using ''minimum fuel" to tell to ATC that basically you have committed to land at a specific airport and any deviation from the existing clearance might lead to actually landing with less than FRF. Officially , stating 'minimum fuel' is not an emergency declaration.
I understand the rational of the UK system but it would make sense to be used in very busy terminal areas . I want to confirm that in a non busy area the declaration of "minimum fuel" could be dealt as in the rest of europe
You are essentially saying you want to be handled as an emergency without declaring an emergency. A minimum fuel advisory serves a purpose--letting ATC know that a plane cannot accept additional delays. If a PIC feels priority is needed to ensure a safe landing, he/she should declare an emergency. The prospect of having to explain why you declared should not be a consideration.

Maybe the proper question is: Why does "the rest of Europe" handle minimum fuel differently than the UK, the US, and the basic ICAO guidance?

[C.M]

You are essentially saying you want to be handled as an emergency without declaring an emergency. A minimum fuel advisory serves a purpose--letting ATC know that a plane cannot accept additional delays.

No that is not what i am saying . You need not be in emergency to be given priority at least in places that are not packed with traffic.
Im saying that in UK airspace it seems you have to refrain from using ''minimum fuel'' , accept whatever delay you may be given and if that delay results in landing with less than FRF , then you will be given priority based on the fact that you have declared a mayday . SO no que skipping unless in actual emergency.

In less busy areas ( outside of UK ) i have at least witnessed twice the ''minimum" fuel declaration been treated as priority (not emergency priority ) . In one occasion we decreased speed to minimum clean while the other guy arriving from opposite direction made a quick arrival and landed .By the time he was on late final we were overhead joining the outbound leg so no harm done .

My question was : Would there be cases in the UK where if traffic is not that much were the controller would actually not force you to accept a delay that gets you burning your FRF , and assist you in a clearance that lands you on time and could see use of ''minimum fuel'' declaration instead..

[Del Prado]

At quieter times there may well be two aircraft equidistant from the airfield (or more accurately a 10 mile final) and it’s a toss of the coin decision who is first. If one of the aircraft has declared minimum fuel then of course he’s No.1 and the other will be instructed to ‘...decreased speed to minimum clean...’

I do struggle to understand in that scenario why an aircraft with no delay is minimum fuel.
-Although I have had an A320 once declare minimum fuel just after I’d given him a 40 mile shortcut and straight in!




If the delay is excessive or likely to get worse elect to divert earlier than later. If your destination is closed due emergency or below limits it can often take 10-20 minutes for the alternate to accept you and this often leads to multiple fuel maydays. (The system doesn’t work!)

[chevvron]

Why this reluctance to declare an emergency; it doesn't need a Mayday, just a Pan will suffice to get you priority.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Why this reluctance to declare an emergency; it doesn't need a Mayday, just a Pan will suffice to get you priority.

That.

My understanding is that if you think you may land with less than FRF, you call Pan; if you know you are going to land with less than FRF, you call Mayday.

Question: Would "be advised we will call PAN due fuel state in the event of further delay" be helpful to ATC? (and I know that, in the UK, this will not get you priority handling).

[C.M]

That.

My understanding is that if you think you may land with less than FRF, you call Pan; if you know you are going to land with less than FRF, you call Mayday.

Question: Would "be advised we will call PAN due fuel state in the event of further delay" be helpful to ATC? (and I know that, in the UK, this will not get you priority handling).

good to know that........

[chevvron]

A Pan call should get you priority in the UK; it could escalate to Mayday status.
Every unit I worked at a Pan call was given priority over 'ordinary' fligjts.

[Sillert,V.I.]

A Pan call should get you priority in the UK; it could escalate to Mayday status.
Every unit I worked at a Pan call was given priority over 'ordinary' fligjts.

Sorry if my previous post was confusing; a Pan call will get you priority; advising that you'll make a Pan call if there are further delays won't (which was what I was trying to say).

For me, it's about advising the controller that I can cope with what I've got now without priority handling, but I won't be able to if you delay me further.

Controllers - is this helpful, or is it just unnecessarily complicating things?

Apologies for any confusion.

[EI_DVM]

Surely the point of declaring "Minimum Fuel" means exactly that though, that any further delay will put the aircraft into a "Pan-pan" state. Saying "HeavyJet123 Minimum fuel, any further delay and we will have to declare a Pan" just blocks up the RT on what is potentially already a congested frequency and is the reason we have the "Minimum fuel" call to begin with.

Minimum fuel is used to alert ATC that you're getting tight, but not in trouble yet and to focus their minds, and ideally means that they will give you as accurate an EAT as possible ASAP, if you feel you need priority to land, then declare a Pan or Mayday as appropriate.

[30W]

The term minimum fuel to me means that I’m advising ATC that I’m now going below my minimum diversion fuel, ie. I’m now COMMITTING to my choice of airfield. Any delay or indeed closure above that alread advised when I make that advisory will require a Mayday call (not a Pan) as ANY diversion will require landing below minimum final fuel on aircraft (30 mins).

In making that decision I should consider delay to approach advised, weather, expectancy to land at my now committed airfield.

Yes it’s an advisory message, but I expect ATC to appreciate and bear in mind the consequences of any further delay to that already advised or airfield/runway closure.

[Cough]

I don't think its necessarily true that an extended delay to an aircraft that's already declared minimum fuel will result in a Pan call. Say the delay is 30 mins and min fuel is called - But now that delay then extends by another 20min after a temp runway closure half way through the 30min delay. So thats still 15mins flying time + fuel for an approach thats still available in the tanks (and for completeness, final reserve fuel too).

So say the aircraft is in the LAM hold for LHR, a div to STN is possible without touching final reserve fuel. So no need for the Pan call. Similar for other locations in the UK...

To make the point though - This is purely a hypothetical situation and some extended delays may well need to declare an emergency! But often there may be other options...

Totally agree with DVM's final paragraph.

Ed to add...

When I use the alternate fuel for holding then I commit to a single approach. I'm not committing at that stage (the hold!) to the destination, just to a single approach...

[Capt Pit Bull]

CAP 413 for the win.

[30W]

Cough,

I agree with your explanation re a situation such as LAM holding with STN/LTN available from that point.

It isn’t the same logic for everywhere however. Destination LGW, and holding south of the field with LHR fuel alternate, there IS a point when eating into reserve fuel that the decision IS to commit to LGW with circumstances/information available suitably considered. A required diversion post that decision would require an emergency declaration as having used already some of the diversion fuel in holding and therefore now planning to enter into my minimum final fuel.

In short there may be alternatives as you suggest depending on geographical location and other airports close by from that hold vs the airfield itself. Sometimes however there may not be.

Rgds
30W

[Cough]

30W - Agree.. That's why I wrote in the terms I did!

LGW is more difficult and also relevant to that point is what aircraft you are flying (can you use the smaller fields such as SOU etc) . Folk do forget too that often diverting from the hold wouldn't be using as much fuel as from the G/A. Each scenario is different, and that (for me!) is what makes it interesting. But if you haven't enough fuel, use the distress call - its what it's there for!

[Del Prado]

The sad truth is you probably won’t be accepted in good time by your alternate so you won’t be able to commence diversion ie. leave the hold until you do declare a Pan or Mayday.

[Doody2007]

The following is taken from CAP493, the manual of air traffic services. Section 1, chapter 4.



10A.3 Controllers are not required to provide priority to pilots of aircraft that have declared
"MINIMUM FUEL" or that have indicated that they are becoming short of fuel.

10A.4 Controllers shall respond to a pilot's declaration of “MINIMUM FUEL” by confirming the
estimated delay he can expect to receive expressed in minutes, or no delay, when the
pilot is en-route to, is joining, or is established in an airborne hold; or by expressing the
remaining track mileage from touchdown if the aircraft is being vectored to an approach
(SERA.11012(a)).

10A.5 At locations where EATs are not issued until the amount of delay reaches a particular
value, controllers must provide a general indication of the delay, based on the best
information available at that time (see ENR 1.9-4).

10A.6 Once in possession of either the estimated delay or remaining track mileage, the pilot will
determine whether or not he can continue to the aerodrome with or without declaring a
fuel emergency. Controllers shall keep pilots informed of any increase in delay or
increase in track mileage after the pilot's initial declaration of "MINIMUM FUEL" following
which the controller can expect the pilot to declare an emergency.

10A.7 Controllers shall respond to a pilot who has indicated that he is becoming short of fuel but
has not declared "MINIMUM FUEL", by confirming the estimated delay he can expect to
receive expressed in minutes, or no delay, when the pilot is en-route to, is joining, or is
established in an airborne hold; or by expressing the remaining track mileage from
touchdown if the aircraft is being vectored to an approach; then ask the pilot if he wishes
to declare an emergency.

10A.8 Pilots declaring an emergency should use the following RTF phraseology "MAYDAY,
MAYDAY, MAYDAY" or “MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY FUEL” and controllers shall
provide such aircraft with flight priority category A (SERA.11012(b))).

[chevvron]

I've known more than one bizjet in the hold at OCK getting short of fuel and rather than declare an emergency, they've asked to divert to Farnborough.
I think I can also recall one doing it from BNN; he didn't have any 'plates' for Farnborough and had never visited before so as I took him downwind I pointed out the airfield to him and briefed him on the runway length and ILS frequency.

[pilotnik]

I have experience on both ATC and airline side of the radio and I couldn't agree more with people who wrote that pilots are reluctant to call ANY problem regarding fuel. None of them wants to undergo an investigation or do any paperwork. Moreover, from my experience, many ATCOs AND pilots do NOT distinguish between minimum fuel and mayday fuel :ugh:
What I usually encourage fellow ATCOs is to ask pilots on their total endurance including final reserve. That is sometimes the only way to establish whether the reticent pilot is in fact in an emergency state or not.