Qantas Fuel Mayday
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
Please let me try to learn from your wisdom. What safety risk arises from landing with 29 minutes’ fuel remaining after doing a few circuits in a C152?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 62
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may have missed this- who came up with the mayday fuel call? Was it someone at ICAO?
Originally Posted by parishiltons
Yes, there is a MINIMUM FUEL call but it does not provide any priority. To get additional priority a MAYDAY FUEL call must be made. Every call has a specific meaning that provides a common pathway for consequent actions by the pilot and ATC. Here's the relevant extract from AIP (sorry for the large lettering - that's how it uploaded):
A timely reminder. This topic was thrashed out a few years ago when on receipt of a MAYDAY FUEL call, ATC declared a Full Emergency. The extract from AIP (not repeated due to the jumbo formatting) is comprehensive enough and is very clear for the PIC and ATC.
Yes Dick, some brainiac at ICAO made it a 'recommendation' which of course meant that most ICAO states then incorporated it into their rules.
Clearly whoever made this up had lost the original intent of 'mayday'. But now in sim training we get 'mayday' from some operators for a simple engine failure in a multi engine aircraft. Buncha pussies, or what?
Hearing this, the spotters at the perimeter fence listening on their hand held radios would work themselves into an orgasmic frenzy, and of course would call their favourite reporter, who in turn would wet themselves in excitement at such a scoop.
Unfortunately, in some cultures a pilot could be most unlikely to call a mayday, for fear of the attendant publicity being a career limiting move; whereas if one could use the term 'low fuel state' or 'below minimum reserve fuel' to get appropriate handling from ATC, perhaps it would be less alarmist and no less safe.
Clearly whoever made this up had lost the original intent of 'mayday'. But now in sim training we get 'mayday' from some operators for a simple engine failure in a multi engine aircraft. Buncha pussies, or what?
Hearing this, the spotters at the perimeter fence listening on their hand held radios would work themselves into an orgasmic frenzy, and of course would call their favourite reporter, who in turn would wet themselves in excitement at such a scoop.
Unfortunately, in some cultures a pilot could be most unlikely to call a mayday, for fear of the attendant publicity being a career limiting move; whereas if one could use the term 'low fuel state' or 'below minimum reserve fuel' to get appropriate handling from ATC, perhaps it would be less alarmist and no less safe.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 21st Jul 2022 at 07:56.
And that's what is clearly happening!
I believe the term is a mistake but it will be hard to change!
When ATC or pilots hear the word MAYDAY immediate action needs to be taken.
For example a dual engine failure mayday like the one above the Hudson River normally needs more immediate action by ATC than fuel below 30 minutes on landing.
I believe the term is a mistake but it will be hard to change!
When ATC or pilots hear the word MAYDAY immediate action needs to be taken.
For example a dual engine failure mayday like the one above the Hudson River normally needs more immediate action by ATC than fuel below 30 minutes on landing.
I believe this current legislation has slowly dripped through various organisations and authorities following the crash of Avianca 052 in 1990. (ICAO introduced it in 2012)
Probable cause
"The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determines that the probable cause of this accident was the failure of the flightcrew to properly manage the airplane's fuel load, and their failure to communicate an emergency fuel situation to air traffic control before fuel exhaustion occured".
Recommendation
"Develop in cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, a standardized glossary of definitions, terms, words, and phrases to be used that are clearly understandable to both pilots and air traffic controllers regarding minimum and emergency fuel communications."
Avianca 052 Fuel Exhaustion
Probable cause
"The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determines that the probable cause of this accident was the failure of the flightcrew to properly manage the airplane's fuel load, and their failure to communicate an emergency fuel situation to air traffic control before fuel exhaustion occured".
Recommendation
"Develop in cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, a standardized glossary of definitions, terms, words, and phrases to be used that are clearly understandable to both pilots and air traffic controllers regarding minimum and emergency fuel communications."
Avianca 052 Fuel Exhaustion
Have to laugh, the likely cause of this issue, the second best ATC in the world, have completely avoided scrutiny. I believe some years back, when these delays magically appeared out of nowhere, it was mooted that Gatwick handled more than double the traffic of perth with a single runway, nightmare airspace and worse weather. It was also noted that around the time Air lack of Services Australia made significant staff cuts the delays were introduced.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
When ATC or pilots hear the word MAYDAY immediate action needs to be taken.
Do you remember the 1990 crash of an Avianca B707 in New York, where the aircraft ran out of fuel after extended holding? One of the findings of the subsequent investigation was the "lack of standardised understandable terminology for pilots and controllers for minimum and emergency fuel states".
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
Please let me try to learn from your wisdom. What safety risk arises from landing with 29 minutes’ fuel remaining after doing a few circuits in a C152?
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas is playing this down by spinning it - saying "it wasn't a safety issue" on news tonight ! Sure Qantas. . . Sure - no one believes you Mayday is a cut-through word. The Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) already specifies that a pilot in command is required to broadcast 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 fixed fuel reserve and as a result of this predicted fuel state, the aircraft requires immediate assistance.
Perhaps by uplifting adequate fuel - instead of those extra pax would of been a better idea - ex Brisbane hu ? Commercial pressures has proven to be a disastrous in the past, in aviation.
Qantas is consumed all sides on spotfires breaking out and diminishing/tarnishing ONE WAS a proud quality brand. Damage done now. No matter how much PR spinning they do - Sad Really.
Perhaps by uplifting adequate fuel - instead of those extra pax would of been a better idea - ex Brisbane hu ? Commercial pressures has proven to be a disastrous in the past, in aviation.
Qantas is consumed all sides on spotfires breaking out and diminishing/tarnishing ONE WAS a proud quality brand. Damage done now. No matter how much PR spinning they do - Sad Really.
All ICAO needed was a word which made the situation 100% clear to ATC but not the publicly well known Mayday.
Could be "Perth - we have alpha fuel"
The media will beat this up every time Mayday is mentioned as if everyone is about to die! Glad I don't own an airline!
Could be "Perth - we have alpha fuel"
The media will beat this up every time Mayday is mentioned as if everyone is about to die! Glad I don't own an airline!
Originally Posted by mates rates
So this crew arrived over PH with 1600 kgs if the 40 mins fuel remaining is to be believed.Given 15mins extra holding would be max.600 kgs or if on descent less than 100 kgs.They must have been arriving PH with 2200kgs max. including any traffic holding from the flight planning stage.This is very thin on fuel for PH.This airport always needs to be considered a remote strip operation with unpredictable WX and the worst ATC system around, you ALWAYS need a plan B.So there is plenty to see here!!What is legal and what is safe,are two different things.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
Wasn’t the point of what?
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: QLD
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
All ICAO needed was a word which made the situation 100% clear to ATC but not the publicly well known Mayday.
Could be "Perth - we have alpha fuel"
The media will beat this up every time Mayday is mentioned as if everyone is about to die! Glad I don't own an airline!
Could be "Perth - we have alpha fuel"
The media will beat this up every time Mayday is mentioned as if everyone is about to die! Glad I don't own an airline!
I agree completely with this. The media being the media will always make a story that gets clicks (maybe even manufacture bits of it), I bet journalists that haven't the foggiest will salivate at opportunites like these and just throw it whatever they can find because they know "Qantas" and "Mayday" together garners a lot of attention. Not only that but it makes nervous flyers even more nervous. They aren't helping.
Originally Posted by BuzzBox
Let me try to learn from YOUR wisdom. There's been a lot criticism about the use of "Mayday Fuel" to declare a fuel emergency. In your esteemed opinion, what words should a crew use to declare a fuel emergency and at what point should they be used?
The answer to your question is in the terms of your question. A fuel ‘emergency’ should be declared when it’s an ‘emergency’. The word emergency has a meaning. So does the word ‘mayday’.
But both of those words are now being used in the context of circumstances which are not, objectively, an emergency. It’s a case of the tail wagging the dog, because apparently we don’t have the wit or wisdom to design ATC procedures that will result in a heavy stuck in a stack being given priority due to calculated fuel being a minute short on landing, without the use of the word “MAYDAY”. Only in aviation…
And, in any event, the rules have (in Australia) been applied to all Australian aircraft, including a Cessna 152 doing circuits, despite the circumstances giving rise to the bright idea being quite specific.
Originally Posted by InCruise
Qantas is playing this down by spinning it - saying "it wasn't a safety issue" on news tonight ! Sure Qantas. . . Sure - no one believes you Mayday is a cut-through word. The Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) already specifies that a pilot in command is required to broadcast 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 fixed fuel reserve and as a result of this predicted fuel state, the aircraft requires immediate assistance.
Perhaps by uplifting adequate fuel - instead of those extra pax would of been a better idea - ex Brisbane hu ? Commercial pressures has proven to be a disastrous in the past, in aviation.
Qantas is consumed all sides on spotfires breaking out and diminishing/tarnishing ONE WAS a proud quality brand. Damage done now. No matter how much PR spinning they do - Sad Really.
Perhaps by uplifting adequate fuel - instead of those extra pax would of been a better idea - ex Brisbane hu ? Commercial pressures has proven to be a disastrous in the past, in aviation.
Qantas is consumed all sides on spotfires breaking out and diminishing/tarnishing ONE WAS a proud quality brand. Damage done now. No matter how much PR spinning they do - Sad Really.
