Fuel Critical
 

Just wonder, when we get a piece of paper hand to us by the supervisor saying "CPAxxx fuel critical", what does it mean?
What do you want me as ATC to do? Can I not vector you or hold you now? No supervisor can ever give me a straght answer.
How much fuel it means you have left? :confused:
I once tell UAL turn right 30 degree for spacing and he comes back with "Hey, didn't the company tell you were fuel critical!" What can I say???


P.S. Good to see CPA give you guys a good bonus this year. Maybe they can convince Govt to give HK ATC one too for helping with there profit.:ok:

flying on fumes...
 

You may be able to answer your own question by imagining yourself in the cockpit issuing the 'fuel critical' message?

Ask CPAxxx if they are declaring an emergency. If not then treat them as you would normal traffic. If CX want to put passengers on instead of fuel that is their problem, not yours.

Of all the long haul flights (god forbid you be fuel crit on short haul) that I have operated in CX I can honestly say that less than 0.1% have burnt more than CFP cont when I find myself approaching the HKG FIR

Hello Suzie! If a flight is fuel critical, the pilots are probably a little nervous about 1) doing a full arrival route, and 2) any vectors. I would suggest that when a fuel critical flight first checks on with you, you tell them your plan for the flight, such as planned track miles or location of traffic they are following. If you have to give them a slight vector for spacing, calm the pilots' fears by telling them "turn 30 degrees right, SHORT vector for spacing" so they know that you're not planning on vectoring them all the way to Shanghai before a turn to final.

You can say "attention all traffic take up the hold R/H pattern, CATHAYxxx is fuel critical as the supervisor just handed me a piece of paper saying so, CATHAYxxx clear to land, contact tower 118.4 established, and the rest of you CATHAY invented aviation so that's that!" :E:ok:

Suzie Wong.... Good Question,some not very considered answers.

Fuel critical is like a little bit pregnant. If you choose, or are pressured by your company to carry light loads that is your choice. In many parts of the world, 'FUEL EMERGENCY and 'MEDICAL EMERGENCY' are the two phrases that get priority. For obvious reasons.:D:D


Now, can someone please, in 'REAL TERMS' answer Suzies question. :ugh:

I have only used it once. To me it meant, don't put me in a hold and dont give me excessive vectoring. If there is excessive queuing then I would speak up and ask for priority...if it got really bad I would declare an emergency.

I find that 95% of my arrivals here are quite orderly with minimal delays....I would not expect any extra ATC attention with the telex as quoted. If my fuel state was more dire I hope I had a bloody good reason for overflying a perfectly good airport with refuelling capacity and I would be declaring an emergency which should remove any ambiguity;-)


If I got that message and I was the controller I would just try to make sure the guy doesn't get the full via manila arrival from sierra. If its not an emergency then its not an emergency. So I would treat the message more as a 'heads up' - if there are going to be delays, put this guy at the front of the queue.

To answer your specific question...if we think we are going to land with less than 30minutes of fuel we declare an emergency.

Quite often UAL would say they are short of fuel,but not declare any emergency.Looks like CPA are trying the same trick.In the UK I would treat that that piece of paper with a question to the aircraft,are you declaring an emergency.If the answer is no then it gets treated like all the others.If the answer is yes then squawk 7700 and you will be on the ground ASAP.No delay in the UK is 20 minutes or less holding and after that you give EATs.This all stems back to the DC8 that crashed in New York having run out of fuel,after extensive holding and go-arounds without declaring any emergency.

Thanks numero crunchero
But that is the problem for us - nobody declare "fuel emergency" -they just get the company to call up and pass a note! Then when we start vector somebody else they can say "Hey, don't push me back, I only got 35 minutes too!"
I remember in our training are told about Avianca in NY (?) not using the right phrase and ran out of fuel -seems this is the same.
I think like Rule 3 says you either have enough or you don't!
Anyway thanks.:)

Enroute planning when running short.
 

Hi Suzie,

A good question.

It is pretty rare for us to need to factor in a slick arrival to HKG, for fuel planning when enroute. But it does sometimes happen.

In over 700 long haul sectors, I can only recall having to send such a message to CX IOC (OPS) twice. Typically requesting FIR entry point to somewhere downwind with no altitude restrictions. (Example Elato to Sokoe)

This would probably have been sent when maybe halfway to HKG, with the fuel trend seriously "going the wrong way". Requesting a fuel conservation arrival at this stage is only one of various strategies we would be employing.

This can happen with a major "stuff up on flight levels", plus maybe something extra. One time we were stuck low, and then had to go off track (80+nm) for weather trans pacific. The other time, Mongolia would not let us enter their airspace, so we had to go all the way south to FKG and fly through China. At that stage we were obviously in serious fuel conservation mode, and looking very closely at our predicted fuel for arrival.

Naturally we were overflying airports on the way to HKG, but requesting a "slick" arrival helps us to plan if we are going to continue or drop into somewhere like Taipei etc. The decision to continue to HKG or stop for more fuel on the way is made by the Captain and his crew, if they consider it safe. Financial cost is not a factor.

In summary, the message from our Ops about "low on fuel", is simply us letting you know early that we may be unusually tight and have planned for a slick arrival. If you can't let us go direct, then please let us stay high or fly clean speeds, with no "expedite descent through......"

As always, if you can descibe your arrival plan then we can fly that as fuel efficiently as possibly. If what you describe does not sound good, then we can let you know what we need immediately.

There is a finite stage when we will declare a fuel emergency. Personally I will give you an alert in minutes. Example, "we need to be at LIMES for the approach in 10 minutes or I will be declaring a fuel emergency".

It is too bad that we never get to meet ATC anymore for "socials" or famil flights and talk about these issues. Guess that we are all kept far too busy working!

Keep up the good work!

Suzie,

I don't want to repeat the entire thread, but if I were a controller that was handed that note it would tell me few things. First, most likely the flight has contacted their operations/dispatch and if they are vectored or delayed more than normal then most likely the Captain is going to divert or declare an fuel emergency.
I am always surprised how fast "the brotherhood" is willing to throw others "under the bus" without knowing the circumstances. My experience is that this fuel issue is a result of factors outside of forecasts, expected routings, etc. On a 10-14 hour flight many things can happen that would adversely affect a flight. Even using "best judgement", situations occur that would put a crew in a position that they are looking at a divert (at a average cost of about 1 million USD) or landing with a fuel load significantly less than the "comfort zone" as opposed to being illegal or dangerous.
My advice is that if you can expedite the arrival without undue delay to other flights then do so, if that is not possible tell the crew early so they can make an informed decision.
If this becomes a trend for a certain airline or flight, then I would tell your supervisor and allow him/her to contact the airline operations.
I also suspect that anyone who has a resonable amount of flying experience has found themselves in a similar situation, and a little help from our friends seated comfortably on the ground is always appreciated.

Thanks for all you do!
Sky

Suzie, I for one appreciate the fact that you asked the question. I have contacted IOC on one ocassion asking them to pass to ATC that we request minimium track miles as a result of burning in excess of the fuel plan .... way in excess. The profile I was looking for was FL 130 over Sierra and 40 odd track miles .... and I am happy to say we got it. Granted this is often the profile before 7 am but we were arriving later in the day. What I was attempting to prevent by such a request was FL 130 and 120 track miles which I have had on a number of occasions.

The previous comments by some re the declaration of a fuel emergency is not a standard phrase and , if the situation requires such a declaration then it is important that it is not misunderstood. There is a reticence in our circles to use the term MAYDAY ( 30 mins remaining) however, in my case, performing a glide approach would raise the dry cleaning bill.

Thats an expensive diversion, can you please substantiate the figure?

Mutt

Yes, he pulled a big number out of his arse and posted it on the internet.

The figure is irrelevant, at least the message was sensible. For my money, skyryder has given the best explanation.

The one time I've had to do it here I found ATC very accommodating, so thanks and please keep up the good work!

What do CPA do going into Heathrow in the same situation? Divert to Amsterdam knowing ''we're a bit tight on fuel'' phrase won't work too well in the LTMA.
It seems a bit dodgy having very little fuel left,and not declaring any emergency.You can have unplanned go-arounds for any reason,and then you're in real trouble.Or is it if you declare an emergency then management will punish the pilots.:suspect:

Well Caudillo,

I will submit to your greater knowledge, since it is obvious that you know more than I about this subject. I don't feel any need to "prove" that figure, as in the end your opinion about the veracity of my post won't have a material effect on the happiness of my life.
I will say that I had access to the information of a large world wide carrier and they placed the value(cost), all inclusive of the average 747-400 diversion at approx. 1 million USD. If you find this figure unacceptable then I offer my apologies and you are free to take notice of the misletoe attached to the vertical stab.

Regards

Thanks to everyone for there answers.
It seems everyone thinks it should be rare, but I can tell you that it is almost a daily thing to get a note from UAL several hours before SIERA ( at least when Im on!). Not so frequent with CPA but always the same flights - is that saying something? Like my instructor say , Taken by surprise .... again!. :O

Maybe the HKCAD should have a look at UA's arrival fuels?

Every now and then is fine, but everyday?

Which CX flight is always asking? CX Line ops should be put into the loop so they can have a look at the fuel planning and try to stop this from occurring so frequently.

Close counts
 

Throw a die,

Quit trying to bring in UK thinking. This is one area where HK have their s### sorted.

This explanation of "No Delay" makes me laugh ! It is right up there with fully ready ! Why stop there, there should be "inconvenient delay" = a delay that will make you miss last call, "Ludicrous delay" = you might get in before you run out of Red Rose!"

How very George Orwellian !!

On and thanks Suzy. I have used the preferential request system in anger and it is comforting to know the controller is aware of our predicament. ATCs extra effort has stopped us from going to Maccau a few times ! (Yeah I get a lot of LAs!!!)

Not like the UK though !!

Carry on.

5 Green,
Well if HK has their s*$£ sorted then why is Suzie asking the question what does it mean,or what as controllers should they do? Preferential request system:hmm::hmm:,what category of flight is that then?
The 20 min delay is no delay,was brought in after a Far Eastern carrier arrived at Heathrow on vapours,and had to hold because of traffic.It landed with almost nothing left.Sounds a bit familiar :rolleyes:.The AAIB investigated that one.
The policy that I'm talking about is published in our Mats part1.It is the answer you will get into the UK,and believe me if you declare an emergency you will be number 1 for certain.
I have worked both ATC systems.You take a lot of the UK training and forget it,stand it on it head whatever going to HK.I saw more dodgy things in that place in 3 years,than in the rest of my 29 years career.I thought that the whole idea of aviation safety was to learn from others mistakes or accidents.Well looks like you know it all so there you go.
Safe flying.Carry on carrying on.:ugh:

Actually i would of guessed ATC will receive such a note , especially from CX if the flight noted in that note is using Inflight Fuel Reduction rule. Which leaves us with "45 mins" of fuel. Since one of the criteria that must be met before applying the rule is "No known ATC delays"

Is CAD collating all these requests for priority due to low fuel state? If not why not? Is there a duty by ATC to notify them?

Fuel critical doesn't mean illegal. I have heard United declare a fuel emergency going into Sydney and I've heard an Aerostar declare one going into Bathurst, it happens, but fuel critical is not a fuel emergency so why should CAD be informed?

Let's bring us into other view when aircraft declared "fuel Critical". As a dispatcher, I will look out air traffic and call ATC for any delay or holding during ETA. And also look for listed alternate within their fuel remain on board. Normally, it just like warning to dispatcher that the aircraft may divert if any holding or delay occured.
If aircraft declared fuel emergency, the aircraft must land asap and they are not enough fuel for diversion. For dispatcher, a lot of paper work and report will submit to CAD afterwards because it may involved inproper planning.:{
Follow this link to see the air crash investigation about the Avianca 52 running out of fuel over New York and you may more about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSdjR...eature=related

As a B744 operator who has analyzed the cost of carrying extra fuel compared to the costs assoociated with a "fuel diversion", we know exactly how much the diversion costs and it isnt close to USD1m.

Mutt

How long would it take for CPA to start abusing the system.If the passing the wee bits of paper works to get you in quicker,then this will become the norm.Nudge Nudge wink wink know what I mean.;)
What would CPA say at Heathrow if all the BAW flights got in first,because they have a secret system.I'm sure they would be screaming blue murder.:}

Suzie's original post was about CX asking for low fuel privileges and yet it seems that your most frequent concern is from UAL.

I suspect that this is not only a safety issue and much more a commercial issue. UAL dispatch under FAA dispatch regulations and to take extra fuel that common sense and airmanship would dictate requires serious cojones to face the subsequent managers letter to you. (UAL pilots are welcome to diss this statement if you think it is not true, but it is posted with some knowledge of the workings of your dispatch system.)

As airline managements over the years have needed to cut costs and improve productivity for the sake of their shareholders, fuel has taken an ever larger focus of their interest. The result is that I believe it is fair to say that most pilots depart with a fuel state that whilst legal is less than they would have taken if they had had a free decision in the matter, weighing up the cost benefit analysis.

So ATC get lumbered with airline operations calling them to ask for preferential treatment on approach. I think if this happens more than twice a year in Hong Kong from the same airline you should be very skeptical of the fuel policy of that airline. If it is happening as often as you report, then CAD should be informed, by whatever process you have. Remember that the DCA was once in ATC, and you will realise that you will get an educated and probably sympathetic ear to the problem.

in the USA
min fuel = any undue delay will burn into fixed reserve 45 min ATC wont' give holds or delay vectors
emergency declared at 30 minutes left

sounds like critical might = min fuel

Critical fuel?
How does an ATC supervisor know what we have remaining (real time) unless Engineering picks it out of the CMC....
recently given extra vectors to accomodate "fuel critical" flight YYZ-HKG when we had just done 15 hours from LAX. I guess I should have told ATC we were "fuel critical" (but 8T, on landing, is normal for us on that sector).
Less than 30 min.; declare an emergency, other than that join the pattern.

I'll take a punt
 

and guess the callsigns of these aircraft start with 8 ...

Having been involved in a few reclearance operations and inflight reductions of fuel coming back from LAX and SFO recently, I think it is perfectly acceptable to declare your hand a few hours out and ACARS Ops and ask for priority over other CX aircraft. I understand this facility is available and I would wager this is what Suzie is experiencing. If the answer is no... RCTP and ZBAA and the subsequent 400 hotels rooms come into play.

Seems a shrewd way of operating to me.....

UAL have been doing this for years.When I was there 98-01 is was as common as one or twice a week at this time of year.I used to mention why (10 HK$) don't they carry more as this is a common problem,but got the same response as Suzie gets.
HKATC try and fit these aircraft in and perhaps got a photo copied note a day or 2 later as a thank you.But by doing this,it has now become the norm,when the way to stamp it out is no preferential treatment unless you declare an emergency.Then the CAD will know and butts will be kicked.Doing it the HK way,no-one changes anything and the practice spreads.The coal face ATCO as usual has to take the flak.
Still no-one has mentioned what the fuel policy is going into Heathrow with CPA.Do they adhere to the 20min holding rule,and carry the fuel for that?

If the CAD allowed 3mile radar separation,then you could up the movement rate and there would be less delays.But the high speed exits would have to used as such,and not a parking lot.
Bit if UK thinking there.:}

A bit surprised to see controllers asking such question here.:confused:

Didn't they teach you that in the Training Unit?

Keep up the good work!

throw a dyce
 

I am having trouble following your post but I think when you say

"..why (10 HK$) don't they carry more as this is a common problem,.."

you are saying crews are chosing, for economic reasons, to not load enough fuel.

Often out of LAX/ SFO you are operating to a fuel limit; either the amount you can fit in the tanks, or Max Ramp Wt, Structual TO Wt or RTOW; You simply cannot load anymore fuel.

Your options are to offload passengers or freight at the last minute; which will mean you delay miss your slot and then APU burn more fuel (and of course alienate a lot of customers). You can launch and land in TPE or ZBAA or Soeul and at best cop a long day and at worst nitestop because CX can't generate a crew to take the aircraft on. Alternatively, you launch then manage the aircraft and fuel and prior to passing your LPD you will have numbers to be legal and sensible; however as a prudent pilot you are considering the "what ifs" so you want to get as many things on your side; which would include getting CX ops to ask Suzie Wong and her colleagues that you have priority over other CX aircraft... is that unreasonable?

It would be erronous to think crews are launching knowing that they have insufficient fuel and expect HK ATC to bail them out at the other end. Equally, it kind of stupid to fly 15 1/4 hours from LAX managing the fuel as best you can and then follow a bunch of company aircraft arriving from MNL and TPE around the radar pattern and then get too close to them on finals, or a windshear warning and goround and declare an emergency due fuel. Don't you think as a company we can avoid this by sensibly shuffling the priority of our own arriving aircraft?

Because the company ring up - must have our direct number to the supervisor. Too bad for operator that don't.

What is wrong with the question?
No, they didnt tell us that we would get handed notes saying "fuel critical" and what it mean. We got told about "Fuel Emergency" etc.

If every company was "shrewd" Liam then we would be in a huge mess trying to please evryone. CPA8xx are not the only long haul we have. Plus I normally only have one UAL on freq- who should give way to him?

Thanks but I like jtr's answer the best so far.

jtr's answer is certainly the easiest one to use as guidance. It's black and white, no thought or flexibility required.
Do you really think it's the best one though?

Can't comment about UAL's policy. However, if he want's priority over CX aircraft declare an emergency; equally if I want one over him, I'll do likewise... worldwide standard.....

The only priority we seek is over fellow company aircraft. The request is placed by us well in advance and the Company will decide if they want to ask HKATC. If they are not prepared to ask; they let us know and we make appropriate plans. If it is HKATC policy not to not play this game; so be it; write to CX explaining such and we all know where we stand.

The few times I have seen this done (maybe 3 times in 6 years); it worked well.....

UAL just came out with a fuel savings program which they're implementing which is exactly that - flying with min fuel. i declared min fuel the other week and nearly twice last week as a result. it's weeks old. you can guess how popular we were slowing to 200 kts from 100 nm out going into IAD.

it's a matter of time before every other airline tries the same is my guess -

Suzie's comments are good...as are many of the Pilots comments on the other side of the coin.

The "big problem" seems to be that nobody has the sole rights on "the big picture". Not only that but the big picture is an ever evolving and variable quantity.

From the pilots point of view, every time he turns up in an ATC destination area he worries about what sorts of delays he may encounter. By law he needs to declare a Mayday if he suspects at any stage he will land with less than 30 minutes of fuel. But, quite simply, the pilot doesn't have the ATC knowledge of the current situation to even start estimating the variables that go towards that end goal...let alone anything in between. And ATC don't go out of their way to inform crews of what might may lie ahead of them.

From the ATC perspective, the controller has no idea of what fuel reserves and holding potential each aircraft has remaining after flights that have traveled halfway around the world encountering less than perfect weather forecasting. Pilots don't go out of their way to keep ATC updated and are not required to do so. And they may even be chastised by ATC if they offer what ATC considers to be "non-relevant information" (Either declare an Emergency, or STFU!).

And on both sides there is the individual human response factor to the different and sometimes, even the same stresses.

But, let me repeat what ATC Grandfather Guru Parker has reiterated on many occasions, ATC has some sympathy for long haul flight arrivals with minimum reserves, but has absolutely NO sympathy for short haul flight arrivals with minimum reserves. There should be mandatory higher reserves for short haul flights operating into major long haul hubs.

Plan your fuel upload judiciously with the real-world in mind.