Qantas Fuel Mayday
What a pointless thread. Whatever the reason, an aircraft into Perth became aware they may land with less than minimum fuel.
They followed the required RT procedure and the rest was a non event.
They followed the required RT procedure and the rest was a non event.
I would agree, CF, but for this kind of fallout:
This is a rare circumstance in which I agree with what Qantas said. But punters will make the - I would suggest, reasonable - assumption that the declaration of a mayday meant there was an emergency and it makes no sense that an emergency involved no risk to anyone’s safety.
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.
I don’t have much wisdom. I merely absorbed the points made by those with experience when this was debated to death a couple of years ago.
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.
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.
Having worked overseas for a number of years and seen these procedures in action on several occasions, they worked well. ATC instantly got the message, the aircraft concerned (not mine) were vectored out of the hold, given priority for landing, and nobody batted an eyelid. It seems to me that some people here like to make mountains out of molehills. Perhaps they need to broaden their horizons and see how the real world operates outside the sheltered workshop that is Australian aviation.
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.
The real issue here is the Australian ATC system combined with the lack of runway infrastructure but I will bet my bottom dollar that none of that will be addressed in the report it will just all be glossed over and if they can't blame the pilots then it will just be swept under the carpet.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 21st Jul 2022 at 13:07.
fixed fuel reserve
Surly this day and age with accurate winds, accurate performance data and well coordinated ATC, it could be done with.
Then a Mayday would be appropriate.
I got busted by an ATC gentleman for only having a margin of 1 minute, when I had 45min plus 60 holding and 15%.
Actual Quote from a Bell 204 pilot in Canada years ago: : “How long will this thing run on the Low Fuel Light? BEEP BEEP BEEP Disregard I just found out!”
Splash one 204 in the lake 1/2 mile from the pad he was heading for.
Splash one 204 in the lake 1/2 mile from the pad he was heading for.
Guest
The question in this (Qantas) instance isn't so much "Fuel mayday was called" but "Why?".
Everyone blaming the crew. Maybe a technical fault was to blame?
The fact that having been goven a "Low fuel advisory" ATCs response was "Not our problem" is a potential place for seeing where there is a problem. That is an indication that there is a potential emergency and a chance to stop it. If they really DID say "Can't help unless it's a Mayday", then we need some very serious examination of ATC procedures.
I've been in the situation of knowing we were going to be tight at the destination for 7 hours, conveyed this to Oceanic and Continental US ATC, and had them work very hard to help us out- no danger, we had divert options- but ATC is there to facilitate air traffic.
If they landed with more the 30 mins at holding rate, they were not technically in a "Mayday" state, but having been all but dared to do so by ATC, and realising that DECLARING and emergency was the only way to PREVENT an emergency, they did the right thing-but whichever ATC bod decided stopping a low fuel emergency from happening isn't their problem needs kicking.
Last edited by Wizofoz; 21st Jul 2022 at 23:18.
I don’t have much wisdom. I merely absorbed the points made by those with experience when this was debated to death a couple of years ago.
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.
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.
But they don't, and it would be both bad practice and poor ecconomics to do so- the number of divertions would make any supposed saving moot. Minimum fual means something hasn't gone to plan (in my case, a flight-planning error as it was a brand new aircraft and the performance degredation figure was wrong) but it isn't yet an emergency. ATC is there for saftey- and PREVENTING an emergency sounds like a sound saftey goal to me!
Having worked overseas for a number of years and seen these procedures in action on several occasions, they worked well. ATC instantly got the message, the aircraft concerned (not mine) were vectored out of the hold, given priority for landing, and nobody batted an eyelid. It seems to me that some people here like to make mountains out of molehills. Perhaps they need to broaden their horizons and see how the real world operates outside the sheltered workshop that is Australian aviation.
The “procedure” could work just the same if the mandated phrase were “Fluffy Puppy” or “Ford Prefect” or “Ethel The Aardvark Goes Quantity Surveying”.
In the “real world”, the word “Mayday” is usually used to describe a ‘mountain’, not a ‘molehill’. That’s why it’s hardly surprising when the media and punters get really animated when they hear that an airliner’s crew has declared a “Mayday”. And the media and punters get really sceptical when the airline says ‘move on, nothing to see here, there was never a risk to safety’.
The terminology makes a mountain out of a molehill.
I get it: There’s a power stoush going on between ATC and airlines. ATC don’t want airlines to be ‘encouraged’ to use fuel management practises which assume they’ll be able to ‘cut the queue’ by simply declaring a ‘Fluffy Puppy’. So the bright idea: Let’s make sure it can only be done by declaration of a ‘Mayday’, thus turning the circumstances into a ‘mountain’. But the same outcome could be achieved without the ‘collateral damage’ of declaring a ‘Mayday’ when there’s no objective emergency.
And I also get it that the aim of the declaration is to precipitate priority changes now on the basis of calculations and predictions as to what could happen if nothing changes. But I note that the prediction of what could happen, which results in the requirement to declare a ‘Mayday’, includes landing with 1 minute of final reserve having been consumed. (And please: Let’s not rehash all the arguments about instrument accuracy and potential further random delays, which arguments lead inexorably to requirements for declarations of ‘Mayday’ earlier and earlier and earlier and earlier…)
Finally, this all points up why this has nothing to do with a C152 doing circuits out the back of Bourke and why this special ‘Mayday’ declaration rule should not apply to them at all.
It’s a problem as old as aviation , 747 going into Heathrow , Aussie captain , not Qantas , having issues with female approach controller who wants him to declare fuel maday but he just wants reassurance of no delays and in frustration asks if there is a male controller he can talk too . Long haul into LA gets told he will have to declare a fuel mayday if he wants to get priority , so he does only to be told he is No 42 in the fuel mayday stack .
I get atc’s frustration , pilots arriving regularly wanting special consideration and some days they just say prove it ! Should they prioritise a long haul that departed the day before with weather that’s changed while in flight or a domestic or regional that departed 2 hours ago that took min fuel ?
No need for special word , maybe Perth needs more fuel as not a lot of options if things don’t go perfectly?
I get atc’s frustration , pilots arriving regularly wanting special consideration and some days they just say prove it ! Should they prioritise a long haul that departed the day before with weather that’s changed while in flight or a domestic or regional that departed 2 hours ago that took min fuel ?
No need for special word , maybe Perth needs more fuel as not a lot of options if things don’t go perfectly?
having issues with female approach controller who wants him to declare fuel maday but he just wants reassurance of no delays and in frustration asks if there is a male controller he can talk too
See discussion
Perth "Mayday" From Crikey.com
perth is a very dangerous airport for the inexperienced pilot.
your union and the AFAP needs some teeth.
‘I have heard a declaration, “Mayday “ while preflighting with radio on tower, on ground Perth 0200, and the fog was not forecast.
The aircraft QFA330, landed with almost no fuel after doing an auto land in 100meters fog.
my experience of over 25,000 hours tells me you should always carry alternate for Perth.
I am retired now and have ATC tower experience.
Airports close for multiple reasons
Fog, thunderstorms, melted runway ,accidents, security similar to 911, use your imagination for possible closures.
I was ATC when Sydney had the “Mr Brown” 1971 security threat but could have been for real.
I always carry alternate fuel, (once I carried Melbourne when nothing else was possible.)
very expensive but your aviation union should act in the interest of the accepted international safety standards.
Demand union policy from Your Toothless union.
Perth "Mayday" From Crikey.com
perth is a very dangerous airport for the inexperienced pilot.
your union and the AFAP needs some teeth.
‘I have heard a declaration, “Mayday “ while preflighting with radio on tower, on ground Perth 0200, and the fog was not forecast.
The aircraft QFA330, landed with almost no fuel after doing an auto land in 100meters fog.
my experience of over 25,000 hours tells me you should always carry alternate for Perth.
I am retired now and have ATC tower experience.
Airports close for multiple reasons
Fog, thunderstorms, melted runway ,accidents, security similar to 911, use your imagination for possible closures.
I was ATC when Sydney had the “Mr Brown” 1971 security threat but could have been for real.
I always carry alternate fuel, (once I carried Melbourne when nothing else was possible.)
very expensive but your aviation union should act in the interest of the accepted international safety standards.
Demand union policy from Your Toothless union.
The system should treat all users the same, the problem is more that they allow inbounds to continue and then slap them with a last minute 15 minutes, when it could have been done a long time before. Give aircraft proper slots, be at feeder fix x at x time, not 'about this time' gdp rubbish so that everything departs +-15 minutes or some nowhere near that and then deal with 15 aircraft that should have been well spaced. I can depart right on GDP time, get airborne and get min speed and15 mins holding, then another aircraft gets max speed to fit in front of me, that's where the system makes no sense at all. And that scenario happens regularly, not based on emergencies or medicals, just weird TAC decisions. Then inevitably the max speed aircraft doesn't meet its time and everything gets a further slow down, when we could have been 5 minutes ahead of it even with slow down of 5 minutes.
I always aim to land with an hour+ in the tanks, no point being on fumes when you don't have to, my aircraft starts yelling expletives at me before it gets to FR fuel level anyway, so I'd be dealing with abnormal checklists and reports if I got anywhere near 30 minutes remaining.
I always aim to land with an hour+ in the tanks, no point being on fumes when you don't have to, my aircraft starts yelling expletives at me before it gets to FR fuel level anyway, so I'd be dealing with abnormal checklists and reports if I got anywhere near 30 minutes remaining.
Has anyone thought that the flight may have been fuel limited. I.e due to headwinds which have been large over the last few days that with BNE/PER that with full tanks may not have given them the fuel they would have liked? Not dissimilar to DPS ops on the 737 where full tanks can leave you with approx 3.0 fuel at destination.
Lead Balloon:
Yep, but ICAO chose to use the term "Mayday", a word that gets everyone's attention, as intended. Get over it. They also chose to use fixed reserve as the trigger; a well known concept that is already defined in the regulations and which is supposed to be kept intact except in cases of emergency. What other quantity of fuel remaining would have been acceptable to the critics? Ten minutes, five minutes? Perhaps a pilot should wait until fuel exhaustion occurs before declaring an emergency? After all, the aircraft is flying perfectly well right up to the point where the noise stops, so no emergency exists before then, right? Sarcasm aside, at what point does a low fuel situation become an 'emergency'? History shows that leaving it up to a pilot to determine such a nebulous point can have catastrophic results. Tying it to a simple concept such as fixed reserve takes away that nebulosity.
A point that seems to have been lost in the argument is that this isn't some Australian oddity; it's an ICAO procedure recommended for use by around 190 different countries, including Australia. Many of those countries do not use English as their first language, with resultant communication difficulties that have been a factor in past accidents. The use of a simple term such as "Mayday fuel" and tying it to fixed reserve arguably takes away much of that problem, as intended.
Only in Australia do we get so uptight about such esoteric crap. It's little wonder that Australian pilots are known overseas as "oztronauts", for their habit of making simple tasks far more difficult than they need to be. If Australian media outlets get so anxious about the use of the term "Mayday", then perhaps they need to be educated.
The “procedure” could work just the same if the mandated phrase were “Fluffy Puppy” or “Ford Prefect” or “Ethel The Aardvark Goes Quantity Surveying”.
A point that seems to have been lost in the argument is that this isn't some Australian oddity; it's an ICAO procedure recommended for use by around 190 different countries, including Australia. Many of those countries do not use English as their first language, with resultant communication difficulties that have been a factor in past accidents. The use of a simple term such as "Mayday fuel" and tying it to fixed reserve arguably takes away much of that problem, as intended.
The terminology makes a mountain out of a molehill.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 22nd Jul 2022 at 03:11.
