Use of "minimum fuel" In UK airspace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: international
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use of "minimum fuel" In UK airspace
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 ?
''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 ?
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?
So what's the problem with declaring an emergency if you are genuinely short of fuel?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: international
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Deepest darkest Inbredland....
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: international
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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!)
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!)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: international
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
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.
Every unit I worked at a Pan call was given priority over 'ordinary' fligjts.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!