PDA

View Full Version : Where did the 'Mayday fuel' statement come from?


Dick Smith
26th Nov 2018, 04:05
I have always understood that the word “Mayday” announced on any radio channel would bring concern that the plane was in an absolute immediate threat of danger. I understood that the "Pan Pan" call was to be used in other situations.

Now we have an ICAO decision to use the word "Mayday" when the plane may be going to land with 29 minutes of fuel.

I sent this letter (http://rosiereunion.com/file/18.10.18%20-%20DS%20-%20Minister%20Michael%20McCormack%20-%20Mayday%20Fuel.pdf)to Michael McCormack and received this answer (http://rosiereunion.com/file/14.11.18%20-%20Minister%20Michael%20McCormack%20-%20DS%20re%20Mayday%20fuel.pdf), which of course doesn’t say anything.

I am interested to find out if anyone knows where this statement “Mayday fuel” came from? I would have thought there would be lots of other words that could be used – i.e “Pan fuel” or “emergency fuel” rather than the word “Mayday”.

I am sure most will agree we have to be very wary of the cry wolf principle.

Wizofoz
26th Nov 2018, 04:09
ICAO. Been in use internationally for years. And that's what the letter says- how could you perceive it "says nothing' when it says we are conforming with international best practice?

Out of interest Dick, what level of remaining fuel do YOU consider to be an emergency?

ACMS
26th Nov 2018, 06:19
Dunno Dick but 29 minutes of fuel sloshing around the bottom of my Airbus fuel tank with 300 POB would get my pucker factor up..........

Lead Balloon
26th Nov 2018, 07:49
According to LeadSled, you might only have 1 minute sloshing around...

Car RAMROD
26th Nov 2018, 07:52
Dick, did you email ICAO?
I presume not.

Also, "mayday fuel" is different to "mayday". That's why it is a different call. A "mayday fuel" call has a set criteria surrounding it. Being cognisant of this criteria behooves you. Don't get hung up on the singular word "mayday".

Lead Balloon
26th Nov 2018, 07:57
Yes Dick: It’s a mayday situation that isn’t a mayday situation. Get with the ICAO program.

TBM-Legend
26th Nov 2018, 08:50
My military days we had "minimum fuel" to get priority which would upgrade to a "Pan" call meaning urgency and then a "Mayday" meaning emergency...

much more meaningful...

Dick Smith
26th Nov 2018, 08:57
Wizo. You just don’t get it!

this is a dopey word to use.

I bet it gets changed when commonsense prevails.

Lead Balloon
26th Nov 2018, 08:58
It won’t be changed, Dick. Australia would never countenance filing a difference from ICAO SARPS.

Wizofoz
26th Nov 2018, 09:06
Wizo. You just don’t get it!

this is a dopey word to use.

I bet it gets changed when commonsense prevails.

You asked where it came from. It comes from ICAO. Used overseas with no problems for years- I guess I don't get that Australia is "different" (though I seem to remember somone constantly critisizing Australian uniqueness in the past.....)

You didnt answer my question- how little fuel is an emergency?

Lapon
26th Nov 2018, 10:28
You didnt answer my question- how little fuel is an emergency

Why does this have to have a quantitative answer :ouch:

Why can't the world just accept pilot discretion as to what constitutes mayday fuel? 29 minutes crossing the final approach fix.... not such a concern, 29 minutes while holding at 38000ft... perhaps.

Capn Rex Havoc
26th Nov 2018, 10:29
Dick -

As other posters have said, we have been using those definitions for years. If I think I am going to land below Final reserve (typically about 4.2 Tonnes in an A380), I want ATC to treat the airfield exactly as if I have an emergency. Eg, tell Aircraft in front of me to go around etc. Because if I have to do a go around, a typical go around, and return to landing will take about 15 minutes and 3 tonnes. That would definitely have you sucking the seat covers into your butt cheeks.

601
26th Nov 2018, 12:30
My military days we had "minimum fuel" to get priority which would upgrade to a "Pan" call meaning urgency and then a "Mayday" meaning emergency...

That is what we should have. A clear concise description of the situation with common sense logical steps.

Adopting "Mayday" and added a word to it diminishes the original intent of the word.
An expected landing with less that the required fixed reserve of fuel should be a "minimum fuel" call.
Just because it has been used overseas for yonks does not make it logical or correct.

donpizmeov
26th Nov 2018, 14:39
The full ICAO procedure is that when a pilot thinks he may land with less than Final reserve he declares “Minimum Fuel” . When he knows he will land with less than final reserve he declares “Mayday Fuel” . This has been used by the rest of the world for sometime, as others have mentioned . It is a good thing Oz has finally caught up (well they didn't take the first bit it seems) . With its remote airfields and lack of facilities fuel can become a scarce resource and having a predictable procedure that is internationally recognised helps to mitigate.
The PAN call is not understood in a lot of countries, hence the use of the word Mayday . Remember ICAO wanted the one procedure throughout the world .
If you plan your flight correctly you shouldn't need to use it .

LB excepted of course .

haughtney1
26th Nov 2018, 16:20
What Don said...Amendment 36 to Annex 6 effective as of 15 November 2012 provides the following additional guidance
:4.3.7 In-flight fuel management
4.3.7.1 An operator shall establish policies and procedures, approved by the State of the Operator, to ensure that in-flight fuel checks and fuel management are performed.
4.3.7.2 The pilot-in-command shall continually ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining on board is not less than the fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be made with the planned final reserve fuel remaining upon landing.
4.3.7.2.1 The pilot-in-command shall request delay information from ATC when unanticipated circumstances may result in landing at the destination aerodrome with less than the final reserve fuel plus any fuel required to proceed to an alternate aerodrome or the fuel required to operate to an isolated aerodrome.
4.3.7.2.2 The pilot-in-command shall advise ATC of a minimum fuel state by declaring MINIMUM FUEL when, having committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel.
Note 1.— The declaration of MINIMUM FUEL informs ATC that all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aerodrome of intended landing and any change to the existing clearance may result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur.
Note 2.— Guidance on declaring minimum fuel is contained in the Fuel Planning Manual (Doc 9976). It should be noted that Pilots should not expect any form of priority handling as a result of a “MINIMUM FUEL” declaration. ATC will, however, advise the flight crew of any additional expected delays as well as coordinate when transferring control of the aeroplane to ensure other ATC units are aware of the flight’s fuel state.
4.3.7.2.3 The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY, FUEL, when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel.
Note 1.— The planned final reserve fuel refers to the value calculated in 4.3.6.3 e) 1) or 2) and is the minimum amount of fuel required upon landing at any aerodrome.
Note 2.— The words “MAYDAY FUEL” describe the nature of the distress conditions as required in Annex 10, Volume II, 5.3.2.1, b) 3.Note 3.— Guidance on procedures for in-flight fuel management are contained in the Fuel Planning Manual (Doc 9976)

Plazbot
26th Nov 2018, 16:53
It came after Avianca burnt in when they did not/could not communicate their fuel state back in the day .it's a world wide accepted practice .I'm sure you would agree.

Wizofoz
26th Nov 2018, 20:47
Why does this have to have a quantitative answer :ouch:

Why can't the world just accept pilot discretion as to what constitutes mayday fuel? 29 minutes crossing the final approach fix.... not such a concern, 29 minutes while holding at 38000ft... perhaps.

Sure- like the world should accept pilot discretion for approach minima, MSA, MTOW and should accept company discretion for Flight and Duty times.

Who needs rules?

Dick Smith
26th Nov 2018, 21:26
A friend in the USA has sent me the current FAA requirements (http://rosiereunion.com/file/inFO08004%20-%20US%20FAA%20on%20Minimum%20Fuel,%20Emergency%20Fuel%20and% 20Reserve%20Fuel.pdf) in relation to “minimum fuel” and declaring a “fuel emergency”. Note that there is no mention of the word “Mayday”.

I wonder if this is just another case where the US will be notifying a difference with ICAO. I understand the USA has filed more differences with ICAO than any other country. Once a senior FAA staffer said: “Dick, if we complied with all of the ICAO requirements there would not be a viable aviation industry in the USA.”

601
26th Nov 2018, 21:30
Note 2.— .... . It should be noted that Pilots should not expect any form of priority handling as a result of a “MINIMUM FUEL” declaration. . .....

Typical bureaucratic response.
Why would you bother to call "minimum fuel" if it is not going to reduce flight time to landing.

the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel.

When being vectored, how does a pilot know what his landing time will be. An extra minute on a downwind leg could be the difference between a "minimum call" at 150 miles and a "mayday" call on base.

There does not appear any requirement on ATC to give a landing time in reply to a minimum fuel call.

LeadSled
26th Nov 2018, 22:22
According to LeadSled, you might only have 1 minute sloshing around...

Folks,
That is an engineering fact, for anybody who understands "order of accuracy". A fact experienced in practice too many times to dispute, as applied to aircraft.
The use of the word "Mayday" is another matter, in my view "fuel emergency" fits the bill as well as anything else --- Mayday is over the top in this situation.
Tootle pip!!

Nulli Secundus
26th Nov 2018, 22:28
Dick Smith 16/07/2018: 'I hate sitting and watching the death throes of GA and I would do anything I could possibly do to stop this from happening, however I have a feeling that the quicker it happens, the quicker it will be fixed'
Dick Smith 28/08/2018: 'Once again I say to everyone get out of aviation as quick as you can. If you stay in you will lose more'

Yesterday: 'I am sure most will agree we have to be very wary of the cry wolf principle'

Dick, please explain to everyone your motive for your contradictory positions: 1. get out of aviation - quick! but, 2. Following my herein published correspondence with the Minister, can we begin discussions on fuel procedures in the industry? 3. Would I be correct to rule out self promotion and the maintenance of relevance in the public eye and the aviation community?

RubberDogPoop
26th Nov 2018, 22:29
A friend in the USA has sent me the current FAA requirements (http://rosiereunion.com/file/inFO08004%20-%20US%20FAA%20on%20Minimum%20Fuel,%20Emergency%20Fuel%20and% 20Reserve%20Fuel.pdf) in relation to “minimum fuel” and declaring a “fuel emergency”. Note that there is no mention of the word “Mayday”.

I wonder if this is just another case where the US will be notifying a difference with ICAO. I understand the USA has filed more differences with ICAO than any other country. Once a senior FAA staffer said:

Dick, I imagine your friend will also point out that Americans "declare an emergency", rather that "Mayday" for any other "run-of-the-mill" emergency too.....

Dick Smith
26th Nov 2018, 22:40
Here is further information I received from the USA on this issue:

“The FAA is moving towards a “compliance philosophy” that de-emphasises penalties in favour of actions designed to help a pilot comply in the future.

It almost feels like CASA is wanting to punish pilots for getting low on fuel.”

LeadSled
26th Nov 2018, 22:59
Dick, I imagine your friend will also point out that Americans "declare an emergency", rather that "Mayday" for any other "run-of-the-mill" emergency too.....

RDP,
Would you like to quote a reference from the FARs/AIM/whatever.
Mayday is alive and well in the FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary, US states it conforms to ICAO SARPS for emergencies, and files no difference for Mayday, as far as I can find.
Any pilot is naturally reluctant (particularly in Australia - where many would rather die, as the lesser penalty) to use the term, because of the bureaucratic investigative storm use of the word triggers.
Tootle pip!!

Lapon
26th Nov 2018, 23:17
Sure- like the world should accept pilot discretion for approach minima, MSA, MTOW and should accept company discretion for Flight and Duty times.

Who needs rules?

I was not implying that rules shouldn't exist, rather that pilot discretion should be used to determine if his/her situation constitutes an emergency.

One poster mentioned the peril of a go around from min fuel in a heavy jet, although I'm sure a min fuel go around at a country field in a kingair would be a comparative non event.

Anyway, I'll fetch my coat and get with the rest of the world.

Dick Smith
26th Nov 2018, 23:28
Nulli Secundus, my statement in relation to getting out of aviation obviously does not refer to the major operators. They are making a fortune and the more general aviation is damaged, the more money they will make. Whether you put the word “Mayday” in front of a fuel requirement has no cost effect.

I can’t see why my thread is not consistent with my previous statements in relation to getting out of aviation.

From time to time I receive emails from people asking advice about what they should do with their aviation business and my advice at the present time is to get out. That is because I don’t see any light on the horizon in relation to reducing unnecessary costs. The fact that the statement “CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration” remains just shows how serious the problems are.

Until the Act is changed to reflect the truth I must admit I don’t see any light on the horizon.

Nulli Secundus
27th Nov 2018, 00:33
Nevertheless, & noting your response answers questions never asked, Dick Smith I put it to you again:

please explain to everyone your motive for your contradictory positions: 1. get out of aviation - quick! but, 2. Following my herein published correspondence with the Minister, can we begin discussions on fuel procedures in the industry? 3. Would I be correct to rule out self promotion and the maintenance of relevance in the public eye and the aviation community?

The advice to get out is not exclusively offered to business owners is it Dick? Its also to staff and its also offered to private individuals. Meanwhile, AOPA et al work tirelessly to gain members. More members means more influence and more influence means change! So by all means you can begin discussions that facilitate views on fuel/ operations/ safety etc. but at the same time you can't also drive people away from the industry. They are conflicting positions and they are inconsistent. You have to nail your colours to the mast and declare which position you truly believe, but you can't have both.

Choosing to not declare why you run two inconsistent positions means you should be challenge in regards to your motive. Want to lead, be prepared to be questioned!

Clare Prop
27th Nov 2018, 00:44
Dick the only reason to close a business at the moment would be because it is so difficult to find qualified staff to meet the demand which is increasing at a rate I haven't seen for many years, despite the doom and gloom you like to push in the media.

Good thing I don't have to email strangers for business advice or I probably wouldn't be in this position where years of graft and investment are paying off very nicely.

AS for "mayday fuel" I can't think of a single time in 13,000 hours that I have come anywhere close to being in the situation where CASA say it should be used so it really is a non issue.

Wizofoz
27th Nov 2018, 01:58
A friend in the USA has sent me the current FAA requirements (http://rosiereunion.com/file/inFO08004%20-%20US%20FAA%20on%20Minimum%20Fuel,%20Emergency%20Fuel%20and% 20Reserve%20Fuel.pdf) in relation to “minimum fuel” and declaring a “fuel emergency”. Note that there is no mention of the word “Mayday”.

I wonder if this is just another case where the US will be notifying a difference with ICAO. I understand the USA has filed more differences with ICAO than any other country. Once a senior FAA staffer said:

Dick,

The very FAA document you quote talks about "declaring a fuel emergency." "Pan" is an expression of URGENCY, NOT emergency.

Now, I believe we have a phrase we use when the situation escalates to "emergency"- it's "Mayday".

What exactly is your objection to using the recognized phrase to declare an emergency in a situation you agree is an emergency?

ACMS
27th Nov 2018, 06:22
NIKE.

its not hard folks.

just do it.

Derfred
27th Nov 2018, 11:12
Whether you put the word “Mayday” in front of a fuel requirement has no cost effect.



Oh, yes it does....

As a private operator who probably doesn’t worry about cost of fuel carriage, you may not truly understand what I’m about to say, but here goes anyway:

For the following, I’m going to use the word “aircraft” rather than “pilot” or “operator”, because in commercial operations it is a joint responsibility (PIC has final say obviously but there is operator pressure in some operations).

If an aircraft finds itself in a position that it will be landing with less than Final Reserve (fixed reserve in the old lingo), it needs to call “Mayday Fuel”. This ensures priority handling by ATC, but it also ensures emergency services are activated and a subsequent ATSB investigation. It also ensures front page news.

And so it should.

Any aircraft landing with less than that needs to be investigated. If the investegation finds multiple events beyond the control of the pilot or operator, the investigation may turn to analysis of the events, including forecasting, slot management etc, but 30 minutes is set in sand as a line that thou shalt not cross for good reason, whether it be an A380, Cessna or whatever. When that line gets crossed, people want to know why, and I’m one of them.

Now, commercial operators and pilots alike do not like ATSB investigations, nor do they enjoy front page news. If landing less than Final Reserve puts them in that basket, then good.

Why? Because pilots and operators will (hopefully) do all they can to avoid being put in that position. Including perhaps, loading more fuel at departure, delaying the departure, diverting earlier, stopping enroute for more fuel, using an aircraft more suited to the range, or not departing in the first place. All of which cost real money.

So don’t even think about telling me that using the word “Mayday” on the radio has no cost effect on an operator or a pilot.

donpizmeov
27th Nov 2018, 11:48
By having said Mayday fuel, I don't feel as bad when I tell ATC I won't be going around, as they request, but rather will be landing behind the fella in front who was slow to vacate .

it's a simple procedure. Recognised by most of the world . Just like any procedure dealing with a low fuel state should be .

FlightDetent
27th Nov 2018, 14:11
Why can't the world just accept pilot discretion as to what constitutes mayday fuel? Because we failed to deliver on that promise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52 And being human, we would again. Don't let our self-perceived sense of getting it right put lives in danger, that is how the game is played. It is larger than us.

Derfred
27th Nov 2018, 14:57
Here’s how it actually works in practice (or should):

Melbourne TAF calls for 340/10-15 CAVOK.

Pilot A, let’s call him A20, plans to land at Melbourne with Final Reserve + 20 minutes, as per advisory holding.

Pilot B, lets call him B40, plans to land at Melbourne with Final Reserve + 40 minutes, because he suspects the possibility of increased holding due to single runway operations if the northerly winds increase.

Let’s assume A20 and B40 are converging on Melbourne at a similar time, but B40 is ahead in the landing sequence.

ATC advise both A20 and B40 to hold inbound, expected holding time 15 minutes.

No problem.

Suddenly an aircraft does a go-around.

ATC advice to both A20 and B40, expected delay now 20 mins.

It is now incumbent on A20 to advise ATC “Minimum Fuel”. That is not a PAN, it is merely an advice to ATC that any further delay will result in the aircraft arriving with less than Final Reserve. That is advisory information to ATC. It is not a demand to jump the queue in the landing sequence. Any request to jump the queue at this point can (and should) be denied.

A few minutes later, Melbourne changes mode to RWY34 single runway ops due to an increased northerly wind.

ATC advise both A20 and B40 that holding is now 30 mins.

A20 responds that they are unable to hold for 30 mins due fuel.

ATC says “OK, what are your intentions?”

A20 says “Our intentions are to land in Melbourne”

ATC says “30 minute delay for that, I have weather for Adelaide and Sydney when you’re ready to copy”

A20 says, “Minimum fuel, we need to land in Melbourne, we need priority landing.”

ATC says “Well, you’ll need to declare an emergency for that, otherwise state diversion airport.”

A20 now has the choice to declare “Mayday Fuel” or divert. The main point being, you don’t get to jump the queue unless it’s an emergency, ie Mayday.

Question: should ATC put A20 in front of B40 simply because he chose not to carry fuel?

The official answer is no, Unless A20 declares “Mayday Fuel”, and accepts the incoming associated with it.

Should ATC be in the business of rewarding airlines for carrying min fuel?

haughtney1
27th Nov 2018, 15:47
All well and good Defred, except of course a professional aviator will have anticipated the change in holding times you describe and should already have that plan B up their sleeve.
Never had a “Mayday Fuel” to cope with, but most definitely have called “minimum fuel” a few times...as the intent is to communicate to ATC my actual fuel state, if they subsequently ignore that..well as Don says..they can deal with a Mayday if based on the company fuel policy and state of operator regulations.
I have however committed to landing my destination a number of times (which is a whole other can of worms)
Quite right that ATC aren’t there to reward minimum fuel carriage, but at the same time I need them to work for me.

LookingForAJob
27th Nov 2018, 16:04
Now, I step with some trepidation into a debate mainly about Australian procedures (of which I have very little knowledge and zero experience, coming from the other side of the world), but.....

I was with Derfred and his/her practical explanation....all the way up to the last line. My own view is that ATC is nor, or should not be in the business of rewarding or penalising any aircraft operator. Rather ATC should get on with sorting the traffic out is the most efficient way overall - no favours or special handling involved.

On to the original question, I'm not sure when ICAO adopted the phraseology and meanings that have been well explained here but I do recall in the UK some 20 or 25 years ago there were instances, mainly from one operators, where the crew were telling ATC 'We're getting a little tight on fuel' and often the controller, being a simple, caring human being, would maybe give a bit of priority to that aircraft all other things being equal. Of course it didn't take long before other operators wised up and would make similar claims. The CAA then issued guidance that said, if a pilot makes noises about fuel remaining the controller asks if the pilot wants to declare an emergency - simple question and quick answer. If it's 'yes', that aircraft gets all the priority available, if it's a 'no' then all the flight planning rules are working just fine and the aircraft will land with the legally required reserves.....won't it.

RubberDogPoop
27th Nov 2018, 21:02
RDP,
Would you like to quote a reference from the FARs/AIM/whatever.
Mayday is alive and well in the FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary, US states it conforms to ICAO SARPS for emergencies, and files no difference for Mayday, as far as I can find.
Any pilot is naturally reluctant (particularly in Australia - where many would rather die, as the lesser penalty) to use the term, because of the bureaucratic investigative storm use of the word triggers.
Tootle pip!!

No. not at all because I made no such inference that the term was absent from the aforementioned documents, however, working experience thus far has encountered exactly zero "Mayday,Mayday,Mayday" calls from American crews and yet several "we are declaring an emergency", or the ATC question: "do you wish to declare an emergency?"
Purely as an observation to Dick's statement: "A friend in the USA has sent me the current FAA requirements (http://rosiereunion.com/file/inFO08004%20-%20US%20FAA%20on%20Minimum%20Fuel,%20Emergency%20Fuel%20and% 20Reserve%20Fuel.pdf) in relation to “minimum fuel” and declaring a “fuel emergency”. Note that there is no ”mention of the word “Mayday."" (My bolding), I'd suggest the term is not in widespread American usage anyway - thus, in isolation it is not particularly supportive of his argument....No more, no less.

Check_Thrust
27th Nov 2018, 21:52
Derfred,

From the AIP
Minimum Fuel: The term used to describe a situation when an aircraft's fuel supply has reached a state where having committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than fixed fuel reserve for the flight.

Note: The minimum fuel state is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur.

After declaring "Minimum Fuel" I doubt that the response will be "state your diversion airport" as by definition you have supposedly committed yourself to land at the destination.

Derfred
28th Nov 2018, 01:00
Perhaps so. My point is that “minimum fuel” is not designed for queue jumping, “Mayday Fuel” is.

Dick Smith
29th Nov 2018, 11:50
If a pilot of a small private aircraft is in the circuit area of a country airport and finds that the landing will be completed with less than 30 minutes of fuel does this require the “ mayday fuel “ call to ATC?

donpizmeov
29th Nov 2018, 15:51
If tree falls in a forest and no one saw it, did it really fall? If you are flying a small aeroplane to place that no one knows about, and you land with 29mins of fuel. Do you declare a Mayday fuel, on an area freq that gives you no help . Or do you land, learn, and plan better next time .
if you are flying high capacity RPT and know you are now going to land with less than Final reserve, you must declare Mayday fuel .
In the old days it was called airmanship . These days it's called magic I think .

Checkboard
30th Nov 2018, 11:41
use the word "Mayday" when the plane may be going to land with 29 minutes of fuel.
You do understand that there is no such thing as "29 minutes of fuel"?

Final reserve is 30 minutes, in the holding configuaration at 1500' AGL. .... but put the flaps and wheels down and maneuvre for an approach, and that amount of fuel is no longer anywhere near 30 minutes. Pour on the power for a go-around and it is more like 10 minutes...

oggers
26th Dec 2018, 11:25
Dick Smith

Where did 'mayday fuel' come from?

Like so much of our regulatory burden it is written in other peoples' blood. The seminal Avianca accident linked to already being the answer.

If a pilot of a small private aircraft is in the circuit area of a country airport and finds that the landing will be completed with less than 30 minutes of fuel does this require the “ mayday fuel “ call to ATC?

...your point being that because 25 minutes of fuel is enough for a puddle jumper to complete a normal circuit to land, an airliner that has been instructed to enter the hold with 30 minutes of fuel is equally assured of a safe landing and does not need to bother ATC with a request for priority? Good grief.

A320ECAM
26th Dec 2018, 12:06
To answer the original question, I would hazard a guess to say that the statement came as a direct result from a number of accidents where aircraft have crashed due to poor fuel planning and a rising number of incidents where aircraft have dipped into their final reserve fuel due to poor fuel planning (again) and tight controls set in place by cost cutting airlines.

May I please ask commanders from all around the world, no matter which airline you work for, exercise proper fuel planning and never be afraid to take extra fuel with you. Of course first officers can also add pressure in the decision making process for taking more fuel!

At the end of the day, you are the person responsible for getting to the destination safely and if you crash because of lack of fuel, you will be the first person to be blamed by the investigation and airline management.

LeadSled
26th Dec 2018, 21:29
Folks,
Most of you seem unable to grasp the idea that, at such low levels of fuel (see previous posts on "order of accuracy") you do not know how much you have, and the intent of 30 min. FFR, is so that all engines are running at touchdown --- it is not a difficult concept.
All the "mayday" bit does, is get across, in a blunt fashion, what you have to do, including getting the message across to ATC who will not recognise anything less than a "mayday" to upset the approach sequence, except in FAAland.
A320ECAM, the idea of 30 FFR has been around about as long as Airbus, it is not a new concept.
The history is all there for anybody who wants to look it up, start in the early/mid 1970s.
Tootle pip!!

Dick Smith
26th Dec 2018, 21:51
Ok. I have changed my view. It’s not a dopey word.

Its clear that that it’s only to be used in a very serious situation and I am sure it will get the attention of ATC. Which is the intention.

Happy new new year everyone !

machtuk
26th Dec 2018, 22:01
Ok. I have changed my view. It’s not a dopey word.

Its clear that that it’s only to be used in a very serious situation and I am sure it will get the attention of ATC. Which is the intention.

Happy new new year everyone !


Dick the word 'happy' doesn't apply when it's used in the context of aviation, I prefer you use the words 'good luck'!:-)

A320ECAM
27th Dec 2018, 17:52
Exactly this... and it was not so long so clarified in Europe as a certain low cost carrier was often claiming minimum fuel

Exactly. Commanders, especially at that particular LCC, please carry whatever fuel you deem necessary for the safe operation of the flight. Do not be bullied by management (especially if they call you into the office to explain why you carried more fuel)! If you crash because the tanks run dry, you will be the first to be blamed by the airline!