Couldn't agree more 'A2' but it's often the fear factor of sending out a "Oh Bugga" call of any denomination as that implies a level of perhaps....."****e I've stuffed this up"... in some cases followed by the usual paper work, tea & bickies in a "Just Culture" environment...cough cough cough!

There's Med 1 used when it's obvious that urgent passage is required, you get priority except where an A/C is in danger (or Kev07 is inbound:E)Med 2 less urgent usually reserved for the transportation or returning of medical personal.
Pan & Mayday, both achieve/receive the appropriate responses when used in the context of the included message IE: PANx2 PANx2 PANx2, Eng failure etc. Or MDx2MDx2MDx2 Engine fire etc.
If in doubt use MAYDAY, you can always downgrade to PAN if you get the fire out for Eg or the threat is no longer of imminent danger.
As for low fuel & a level of urgency needs to be conveyed to all out there a PAN absolutely should be used I believe with a follow up Mayday when it becomes critical.
No pilot likes to use these terminologies we all know that but going by the book at the very least covers a certain section of yr ass that's hangin' out there !:)

Wmk2

What's all this nonsense about declaring "Medevac" or "Hospital"? Surely an in-flight medical emergency requiring urgent assistance and priority for landing would warrant a PAN call at the very least? If someone's about to die then a MAYDAY might even be appropriate.

Wally 2 said:

"As for low fuel & a level of urgency needs to be conveyed to all out there a PAN absolutely should be used I believe with a follow up Mayday when it becomes critical.
No pilot likes to use these terminologies we all know that"

Sorry Wal...I didn't know that and never have!

Wally 2 also said:

" but going by the book at the very least covers a certain section of yr ass that's hangin' out there !"

Which means what Wal?...only apply SOPs when it suits you 'cause most of the time you know better?

I don't think you get my drift after all, Wally! ;)

If you declare minimum fuel you'll be asked for your latest divert time from either the pattern or the field. You'll be then sequenced appropriately with no delay. In 23 years of ATC I've never heard of other aircraft being asked to surrender slots, the ATC that allegedly did this must have been suffering a mental breakdown?

It's medevac & hosp priority now. Whenever aircraft have advised a sick pax on board, I don't give a flying you know what whether you've declared medevac or not. You'll get priority, I tell the flow & I've never, ever had a flow insist on the aircraft declaring a phase before being processed with priority.

Over the years I've had several pans & one mayday. I've had several calls that should have been pans & maydays but those words weren't spoken. Phases were declared by ATC's, their supervisors etc because 'common sense' was used. I've had an A320 return to departure point because of 'control issues'. 'Are ops normal'? 'Affirm' was the answer. Do you think a phase wasn't declared? If ops are normal why are you returning to destination?

A question for the techie's, are you being advised not declare pans? If you are not, why aren't you declaring a pan if it clearly is?

Wally- The radio procedures for minimum fuel calls have changed since late 2012.
In a nut shell - If you think you will go below Fixed reserves you call "Minimum Fuel". If you know you are going below - you call "Mayday". Pan call is not now utilised in a min fuel situation.

Here is a link to the IFALPA brief on the matter for you.

http://aviation.osu.edu/wp-content/u...gency-fuel.pdf

Jack- There may have been some unserviceablity that is not a not worthy of a PAN (i.e. no priority assistance needed) eg a Prim fault on an airbus, which is unable to be reset. The company may wish the aircraft to be returned to the departure field as maintenance at an outstation may not be available, or, the fault means that with degraded spoiler operation perhaps landing distance available at the destination is not suitable and it is not feasible to continue to destination. There are a lot of variables at play.

Fair enough :ok: it would help if we had information to that effect though!

It's all in your Operations Manual, Jack! I suggest you read it! ;)

Tnxs 'rexy' I am aware of mentioning Min Fuel to the guy on the other end of the 'string' (Radio) does mean that yr committed to yr destination & that further delay would impinge on final res's that's been around for a while. I read the rest tnxs & am now more informed:ok:
Also 'rexy' that's a good explanation of the 'Ops Normal'

'Amos' yep SOP's for me are "Supplementary Operating Procedures", I only use them as a supplement, additional info as I don't know everything but am working on it:E:ok:Yr right 'A2' am not heading in yr direction yr 2 clever 4 me:E


Wmk2

amos2, I'm an ATC not a pilot (well, a charter one not an RPT) I'm well aware of what's in our ops manual bro! 'Control issues' aren't mentioned in it. Reading your mind isn't part of our aptitude test, neither am I able to see you nodding your head in the cockpit :ok:

I sure do but it's not all there, in fact, it's silent on the medical issue. I wouldn't be surprised if other pilots are also let down by the

Jack question for you?
 

At ASA is Amendment 36 to ICAO Annex 6 Part I Chapter 4 (see below) the recognised accepted procedure here in Oz for cases of min fuel?

Min fuel etc was issued as a national instruction about a year or so ago, same as what is now in AIP

Thanks for the info Sarcs. Whilst looking for that I found this one too, haven't made it that far through but worth a look: ICAO Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual.

Interesting thread running on Fragrant Harbour relating to KA's fuel policy

http://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbo...s-low-gas.html

In Flight Updating
 

There is an aspect of this incident which does not appear to have been discussed in this thread and it really is the "elephant in the room"; and the question that sticks out in my mind is This raises questions as to what procedures Virgin has in place to ensure pilots are updated on changing weather/NOTAMs once they have completed flight planning and now in flight, and also how effective those procedures are in practice. In the preliminary ATSB report, it is mentioned that the crew of VYK were advised by their company (through ACARS) that YPAD required an ALTN within 20 minutes of their departure from YSSY, which gave more time for consideration of ALTN options. I would propose that Virgin's late awareness of the need to hold an ALTN for YPAD may have limited the options available to them for a suitable ALTN.

Furthermore, it is also noted that both the Virgin and Qantas crews did not appear (according to the ATSB report) to be notified by anyone that MIA had also gone into SPECI at 2318Z after both aircraft had notified their intentions to divert to MIA.

So which agency holds responsibility for inflight updating of airline flight crews, particularly for significant weather changes - is it airline operational control, ATC or the pilots themselves through utilisation of Flightwatch services?

Looking forward to hearing from anyone who can enlighten me as to how inflight updating works for both Virgin and Qantas.

Airservices is obliged to provide a Flight information Service, at least according to an oldish version of ICAO Annex 11 Chapter 4 I have. It seems as though someone has decided that "within one hour of destination" is good enough (AIP GEN 3.3, 2.1.1). One hour is not mentioned in the ICAO doc.

So does that mean that Air Services complied with the " within one hour" or that they didn't comply?

Yes, Capn, you're right about ICAO requirements re the provision of FIS.

However, Airservices/CASA changed the rules on FIS some years ago by moving away from the situation whereby ATC had the responsibility for providing a directed FIS to aircraft in flight to one whereby the pilot was responsible for obtaining inflight FIS updates through the "self-help" Flightwatch system.

Interestingly, this change from ICAO SARPs does not appear in AIP SUP H12/11 as a listed Australian difference from the ICAO standards.

Talk about abdicating responsibility!!!!!!!

Who in their right mind would knowingly not pass on critical information like this.

This situation just highlights how stupid that policy is? The crew had no reason to ask and therefore were never told.

I'd like to see how it might play out in court.

"You knew about this critical information but never bothered to pass it on?"

"They never asked My Lud"

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

I'm sure that saved some $$$. Oh dear. Interesting on the legal point though, maybe liability on providing erroneous info would be a concern?

Wasn't my fault Your Worship, the BoM/ATC/Company policy/Jodie Foster made me do it... :ugh::ugh: :yuk:

Responsibility for operational control passed to company/pilot 20 odd years ago.

The fact that the PIC has a range of specified responsibilities does not absolve everyone else from any or all responsibilities. :=

Hempy,

If only things were as simple as your interpretation of that CAR.

Pretty simple, you know ****, you tell people what they need to know. Not hard really. Pity when part of the **** you're being fed is flawed & broken ****.

'Creamy' that's quite true....BUT & yes there's always a but a coroner of such an event as an airframe loss with the resulting loss of life (not an entirely unimaginable scenario with the core subject here) will be heavily influenced by the pilots insurance Co. whom would be looking to be absolved from their responsibilities (payout) due possible pilot error or pilot ability or lack thereof to fly within the current Regs.
Someone has to pay & the man at the steering wheel is at the top of the hit list & is a prime target with Regs already in place that put the responsibility squarely on him/her, it's up to the pilots estate to prove otherwise.
I'd say that should the above ever happen then it would be a huge legal nightmare.
Thank Christ we are only discussing the regs as far as fuel req's go & the limitations of outside agencies....phew !



Wmk2

Wal, lawyers chase whose got the money, not whose in the wrong, mmmmm, what organisations involved in aviation have money? Not you Wal!

'JR Ewing':E All Ins Co's would be looking to get out of a claim anyway they can, that's what I was trying to allude to obviously not very well:sad:

No money here JR, spent it all on the ex wives!:E


Wmk2

Reg 224 is not a rule that can be broken.

Why on earth would heavy metal pilots have policies of insurance for property damage and loss of life? :confused: The best insurance is to be worth a buck…. :ok:

The TAF is a forecast,it is not a guarantee that it will happen.We have PROB30,PROB40 and PROB50 or greater which is the TAF.So we have up to PROB 50 that it may be wrong.If you operate an aircraft on the basis that the TAF is 100 percent correct without a plan B you WILL be caught out sooner or later.

CAR 224.
So this CAR puts all the onus on the PIC for the safe operations of the aircraft. Fair enough.

So where does the man in front of the computer screen with little aircraft symbols moving across it come into the picture?

Does he not pass on to the PIC information, in the form of directions, that to avoid a collision, the PIC should turn to heading, descent, climb, etc. As the PIC does not have the information presented on the screen, he/she cannot comply with CAR 224 even though it would present a danger to the safety of the aircraft.

So what happens when a SPECI is presented to the man with the computer screen that would affect the safety of one of those little aircraft on the screen?

Would not that fall into the same category of information as what is presented on the screen and should be passed on to the PIC?

From a practical point of view, I agree 100%.
How about from the legal point of view, assuming your statement if correct? Why are operators fuel policies not required to make provision for such instances?

The next dilemma is which alternate should be used from a flight planning perspective? Should it have been YPED, YMML, YPWR or YMIA? Which one should be nominated? As we have seen, two separate airfield had unforecast deterioration below the lowest available landing minima.

The only viable solution in this case was simply to "gas it up" to MLW on the basis of CAVOK forecasts.

I keep raising it, but I believe the forecasts went from PROB30 fog to below minima fog in one step. And I suspect that change was AFTER the fog had formed.

Frankly, if when can't get better weather information than this 1 hour ahead of time, then the issue of fuel reserves is just academic.

The things to focus on are getting first world weather forecasting and first world air navigation facilities rather than trying to compensate with additional fuel & sheer piloting skills.

CAR 224 would be grounds for a pay rise would it not.

When we had operational control, ATC was repsonsible for passing operational info to pilots. With the demise of ops control, the responsibility for passing this info went to the company. However, as I previously posted, ATC pass hazardous wx/amended forecasts etc if you are within 1 hour of the situation at the time the amendment is received by ATC (per AIP)
Also AIP 3.3-5 para 2.5.2 says "When providing FIS, ATC will not alert pilots to the availability of aerodrome weather reports that are available from an automatic broadcast service."
Mildura AWIS is available on 113.7 -includes vis cloud temp dewpoint.
Adelaide avbl from numerous AERIS sites including Mt Canobolas and Broken Hill (suitable for both these flights)
From ERSA, flights within 90NM of primary control zone are catered for by ATIS.
The AMD TAF Adelaide and first TTF forecasting fog were both issued over an hour prior to ETA.
By the time the first Mildura SPECI was issued, it looks to me that they were probably committed to Mildura and the amended TAF was way too late.
I don't know what info ATC provided to the pilots or when. Just a response to those critical of our current procedures - not saying they won't change as a result of the final report.

One step further than that, TD: since ATC knew what the latest conditions were, they would determine what endurance was required and then ask for your actual endurance to ensure compliance with the rules.

The MIA AWIS was U/S at the time.

I recall this definition from a previous life in ATC:

"Operational control is the exercise of authority over the initiation, continuation, diversion and termination of IFR flight in controlled airspace"

This exercise of authority can not reasonably be held to be the total responsibility of the PIC.

Companies, CASA and Airservices should stop passing the buck.

Of course, in another age, it would have been possible, and recommended, to simply call YMIA FS and get the actual.....direct.

"Your safety will be enhanced, and, it will cost you less"......??

:{

Mrs Nomer, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't YMIA OUTSIDE CTA, therefore under the "old" rules is NOT suitable as an ALTN??:uhoh: