United mayday into YSSY 4thOct
We were putting us with this cr@p in the 70s. It did not only apply to aircraft on the end of a 14 hr leg but legs like Wollongong to Sydney and hold at Bindook for twice as long as the flight.
Brisbane was just as bad.
TWB to BN get to 20DME and get hit with unplanned 30 holding. One pilot replied that that would use his 15% and some of his FR. ATC reply was "cancel hold, track direct"
Brisbane was just as bad.
TWB to BN get to 20DME and get hit with unplanned 30 holding. One pilot replied that that would use his 15% and some of his FR. ATC reply was "cancel hold, track direct"
Ex FSO,
There are "redispatch" flight plans. Say it's 14 hours LAX-SYD. The FAA regs would require enough fuel to fly to SYD plus 10 percent (84 minutes) plus 30 minutes plus to an alternate. If you make it two flights you reduce the 10 percent fuel. Say initially release the flight to Nadi, call it a 10 hour flight. So enough fuel to get to Nadi plus 10 percent which is now 60 minutes plus the 30 minute reserve plus an alternate, say Faleolo about 1+30 away. You put on enough fuel to fly LAX to SYD plus some more. At about the 9 hour point the flight is "redispatched" with new paperwork to proceed from a waypoint about 5 hours out from SYD. So now you need enough fuel to fly to SYD which you had from the start (the Faleolo fuel gets repurposed) plus 10 percent (down to 30 minutes so the other 30 minutes is also repurposed) plus the same 30 minute reserve. And if the weather is good since the flight is now under 6 hours no alternate is required.
That is done all the time. PAX and ATC have no idea the company's original plan was to only go to Nadi. There has to be contact between the flight and the company for the redispatch to occur. Now it's normally done through ACCARS or Sat phone.
There are "redispatch" flight plans. Say it's 14 hours LAX-SYD. The FAA regs would require enough fuel to fly to SYD plus 10 percent (84 minutes) plus 30 minutes plus to an alternate. If you make it two flights you reduce the 10 percent fuel. Say initially release the flight to Nadi, call it a 10 hour flight. So enough fuel to get to Nadi plus 10 percent which is now 60 minutes plus the 30 minute reserve plus an alternate, say Faleolo about 1+30 away. You put on enough fuel to fly LAX to SYD plus some more. At about the 9 hour point the flight is "redispatched" with new paperwork to proceed from a waypoint about 5 hours out from SYD. So now you need enough fuel to fly to SYD which you had from the start (the Faleolo fuel gets repurposed) plus 10 percent (down to 30 minutes so the other 30 minutes is also repurposed) plus the same 30 minute reserve. And if the weather is good since the flight is now under 6 hours no alternate is required.
That is done all the time. PAX and ATC have no idea the company's original plan was to only go to Nadi. There has to be contact between the flight and the company for the redispatch to occur. Now it's normally done through ACCARS or Sat phone.
Last edited by MarkerInbound; 5th Oct 2018 at 03:40.
Dipping the tanks of an aircraft which has declared a fuel emergency is standard practice on arrival in many countries.
Usually aircraft arriving at Australian airports which are coming from Africa or the West coast of North America are exempt from carrying NOTAM specified traffic holding fuel as ATC can give them priority. Obviously ATC can’t do anything about weather or headwinds though.
Redispatch is also a common procedure which allows an aircraft to depart with less than the normal fuel required by reducing contingency fuel which as a percentage of a long haul flights load is considerable. At the intermediate point nominated you would have the fuel required to divert to your enroute alternate but now the contingency fuel is based on continuing from this point rather than the entire flight so savings can be made.
Usually aircraft arriving at Australian airports which are coming from Africa or the West coast of North America are exempt from carrying NOTAM specified traffic holding fuel as ATC can give them priority. Obviously ATC can’t do anything about weather or headwinds though.
Redispatch is also a common procedure which allows an aircraft to depart with less than the normal fuel required by reducing contingency fuel which as a percentage of a long haul flights load is considerable. At the intermediate point nominated you would have the fuel required to divert to your enroute alternate but now the contingency fuel is based on continuing from this point rather than the entire flight so savings can be made.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly! No real issues with emergency declaration for low fuel when **** happens, (although personally I think the rule should be “Pan Pan fuel” rather than Mayday), but closing the roads as if the aircraft had control problems is over the top!
It is only a “potential” emergency.
I think the issue is if they treated one Mayday differently to another Mayday, who’s ass gets kicked when they don’t close the roads because they think it’s not as serious, then all of a sudden it drops short and kills hundreds on the road beneath the approach.
You all talk about making things simple, why then complicate things by classifying Maydays differently?
The police would authorise the closure of the roads as per the emergency response plan for the airport. The same as the local hospitals would be advised, all emergency services etc.
morno
You all talk about making things simple, why then complicate things by classifying Maydays differently?
The police would authorise the closure of the roads as per the emergency response plan for the airport. The same as the local hospitals would be advised, all emergency services etc.
morno
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly! No real issues with emergency declaration for low fuel when **** happens, (although personally I think the rule should be “Pan Pan fuel” rather than Mayday), but closing the roads as if the aircraft had control problems is over the top!
It is only a “potential” emergency.
Tankengine nailed the solution:
Road closures are an unintended consequence of making something an emergency when it’s not. If ATC says there’s no way the aircraft will be slotted in within 30 minutes, that’s the time to declare Mayday and close the roads around wherever the landing might happen.
“Pan Pan fuel” rather than Mayday.
^^^ Problem though is that the Pan Pan Fuel call doesn’t exist. You should advise Minimum Fuel if you may eat into your final reserve, if you know you are going to eat into reserve then the book is very clear it is a Mayday Mayday Fuel. If the airport policy is to close roads/runways etc then that is of no concern to me.
Also there are many parts f the world who don’t understand the Pan Pan call, I was on the flight deck once where we had a Hydraulic Failure climbing out from an African airport and we declared a Pan Pan call to arrange an immediate return, there was no response to 3 calls, on the 4th the controller came back and said ‘what is this PAN you keep saying. We declared a Mayday and went back, everyone knows what Mayday is.
Also there are many parts f the world who don’t understand the Pan Pan call, I was on the flight deck once where we had a Hydraulic Failure climbing out from an African airport and we declared a Pan Pan call to arrange an immediate return, there was no response to 3 calls, on the 4th the controller came back and said ‘what is this PAN you keep saying. We declared a Mayday and went back, everyone knows what Mayday is.
Tail wagging the dog.
I know what the book says. The discussion is about whether the book is sensible.
If the roads don’t need to be closed when an aircraft is going to land with 31 minutes useable remaining on board, the roads don’t need to be closed if an aircraft is going to land with 29 minutes on board. That is, unless the 2 minutes difference increase the probabilities of an undershoot or overshoot.
And if some heavy metal is going to run out of fuel because it can’t land at e.g. Sydney in time, isn’t it going to force land/ditch somewhere other than close proximity to the airport, thus rendering road closures near the airport somewhat pointless?
I know what the book says. The discussion is about whether the book is sensible.
If the roads don’t need to be closed when an aircraft is going to land with 31 minutes useable remaining on board, the roads don’t need to be closed if an aircraft is going to land with 29 minutes on board. That is, unless the 2 minutes difference increase the probabilities of an undershoot or overshoot.
And if some heavy metal is going to run out of fuel because it can’t land at e.g. Sydney in time, isn’t it going to force land/ditch somewhere other than close proximity to the airport, thus rendering road closures near the airport somewhat pointless?
If the roads don’t need to be closed when an aircraft is going to land with 31 minutes useable remaining on board, the roads don’t need to be closed if an aircraft is going to land with 29 minutes on board
It's simple: The flight crews expectation that less than 30 mins will remain on landing is what triggers the Mayday, the Mayday triggers the airport emergency response.
It doesn't matter how much fuel remains after landing as long as a) there was an expectation in the first place that the reserves were in danger of being consumed to some degree and b) the aircraft lands safely.
FAA Order 7110.65U,Air Traffic Control,states in paragraph:2-1-8.
Minimum Fuel“If an aircraft declares a state of ‘minimum fuel,’ inform any facility to whom control jurisdiction is transferred of the minimum fuel problem and be alert for any occurrence which might delay the aircraft en route.
”NOTE –Use of the term “minimum fuel” indicates recognition by a pilot that the fuel supply has reached a state where,upon reaching destination, the pilot cannot accept any undue delay.
This is not an emergency situation but merely an advisory that indicates an emergency situation is possible should anyundue delay occur.
A minimum fuel advisory does not imply a need for traffic priority. Common sense and good judgment will determine the extent of assistance to be given in minimum fuel situations.
If, at any time, the remaining usable fuel supply suggests the need for traffic priority to ensure a safe landing, the pilot should declare an emergency and should re- port remaining fuel level (in minutes).
Minimum Fuel“If an aircraft declares a state of ‘minimum fuel,’ inform any facility to whom control jurisdiction is transferred of the minimum fuel problem and be alert for any occurrence which might delay the aircraft en route.
”NOTE –Use of the term “minimum fuel” indicates recognition by a pilot that the fuel supply has reached a state where,upon reaching destination, the pilot cannot accept any undue delay.
This is not an emergency situation but merely an advisory that indicates an emergency situation is possible should anyundue delay occur.
A minimum fuel advisory does not imply a need for traffic priority. Common sense and good judgment will determine the extent of assistance to be given in minimum fuel situations.
If, at any time, the remaining usable fuel supply suggests the need for traffic priority to ensure a safe landing, the pilot should declare an emergency and should re- port remaining fuel level (in minutes).
The common sense US practice, but it does require that a controller be given a level of flexibility to exercise good judgement.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Closing roads and paramilitary presence for a low fuel state?
At first glance looks like a bit of security theatre.
Everyone involved in this incident will soon have to answer to a much higher authority.
There was a Sixty Minutes reporter on board and she was not consulted on the conduct of this flight!
tick tick tick
There was a Sixty Minutes reporter on board and she was not consulted on the conduct of this flight!
tick tick tick
LeadSled,
Isn't the intent (if not the wording) of that 'common sense US practice' the same as what we have here in Australia? The Australian AIP states:
The wording in the Australian manuals is pretty much word for word the same as that in ICAO Annex 6, ICAO PANS-ATM and the ICAO FPFFM.
Isn't the intent (if not the wording) of that 'common sense US practice' the same as what we have here in Australia? The Australian AIP states:
11.9.5 Minimum Fuel
11.9.5.1 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 fixed fuel reserve.
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 fixed fuel reserve. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur.
Note 2: 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.
11.9.5.1 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 fixed fuel reserve.
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 fixed fuel reserve. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur.
Note 2: 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.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 5th Oct 2018 at 09:08.
Everyone involved in this incident will soon have to answer to a much higher authority.
There was a Sixty Minutes reporter on board and she was not consulted on the conduct of this flight!
tick tick tick
There was a Sixty Minutes reporter on board and she was not consulted on the conduct of this flight!
tick tick tick
. . .
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mae Sai
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not casting stones, just some factual additions.
Traffic holding advice was 30 mins (post-curfew arrival burst).
Aircraft assigned RWY 16L with 2 mins delay (standard runway assignment for B787s inbound from east).
Aircraft required RWY 16R.
Aircraft assigned RWY 16R with 9 mins delay.
Aircraft declares mayday fuel.
Traffic holding advice was 30 mins (post-curfew arrival burst).
Aircraft assigned RWY 16L with 2 mins delay (standard runway assignment for B787s inbound from east).
Aircraft required RWY 16R.
Aircraft assigned RWY 16R with 9 mins delay.
Aircraft declares mayday fuel.
Well there’s the emergency, right there. /sarcasm off.