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-
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? |
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:
|
Do any of you blokes ever read your companies Operations Manuals and apply SOPs as per the manuals? It's all there, you know. people far smarter than you or I |
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?
Chapter 4 4.3.7 In-flight fuel management 4.3.7.1 An operator shall establish policies and procedures, approved by the State of the Operator, to ensure that in-flight fuel checks and fuel management are performed. 4.3.7.2 The pilot-in-command shall continually ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining on board is not less than the fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be made with the planned final reserve fuel remaining upon land ing. 4.3.7.2.1 The pilot-in-command shall request delay information from ATC when unanticipated circumstances may result in landing at the destination aerodrome with less than the final reserve fuel plus any fuel required to proceed to an alternate aero drome or the fuel required to operate to an isolated aerodrome. 4.3.7.2.2 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 final reserve fuel. 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 final reserve fuel. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur. Note 2.— Guidance on declaring minimum fuel is contained in the Fuel Planning Manual (Doc 9976). It should be noted that Pilots should not expect any form of priority handling as a result of a “MINIMUM FUEL” decla ration. 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. 4.3.7.2.3 The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting 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 final reserve fuel. Note 1.— The planned final reserve fuel refers to the value calculated in 4.3.6.3 e) 1) or 2) and is the minimum amount of fuel required upon landing at any aerodrome. Note 2.— The words “MAYDAY FUEL” describe the nature of the distress conditions as required in Annex 10, Volume II, 5.3.2.1, b) 3. Note 3.— Guidance on procedures for in-flight fuel management are contained in the Fuel Planning Manual (Doc 9976). Or should I say is the above what you as an ATC expect or understand should happen when an aircraft declares min fuel? :ok: |
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
How is it that the Virgin flight crew only became aware of the fog at YPAD when at TOPD at approximately 2300Z? 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. |
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. 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: |
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:08. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.