Committing when an alternate is required
short flights long nights
I would say, not so straight forward, as most overseas operators arriving into Sydney would be carrying an alternate, regardless of the weather. Personally, I would not commit, but go to the alternate, as for what is legal, I really am not sure.
Thread Starter
Thanks again.
Checkerboard. I know that your scenario 2 is totally reasonable and often what occurs in practice.
What I started seeking at the beginning of the thread, and what none of us have provided, is the rule or reg or CAAP ( anything really) that alludes to this.
Waren9 kindly highlighted that keeping Alternate Fuel in tact is only required if an Alternate was required initially as in your scenario 2.
So in your Scenario 2, where is it written that we don't necessarily have to keep our Alternate Fuel in tact
as suggested in the CASA guidance to the rules?
Again I am quite open to changing my viewpoint on this but I would like to see it written somewhere. At this stage I'm not convinced that it's not ' normalisation of deviance' on an industry scale.
Ps, with your Scenario 2 I imagine that there would be Inter or Tempo TTF involved which would indeed allow a practical outcome to remain within the law by ' transferring' the alt fuel to Inter fuel and effectively the destination doesn't require an alternate then. My scenario precludes Tempo or Inter weather.
Checkerboard. I know that your scenario 2 is totally reasonable and often what occurs in practice.
What I started seeking at the beginning of the thread, and what none of us have provided, is the rule or reg or CAAP ( anything really) that alludes to this.
Waren9 kindly highlighted that keeping Alternate Fuel in tact is only required if an Alternate was required initially as in your scenario 2.
So in your Scenario 2, where is it written that we don't necessarily have to keep our Alternate Fuel in tact
at any particular point in the flight
Again I am quite open to changing my viewpoint on this but I would like to see it written somewhere. At this stage I'm not convinced that it's not ' normalisation of deviance' on an industry scale.
Ps, with your Scenario 2 I imagine that there would be Inter or Tempo TTF involved which would indeed allow a practical outcome to remain within the law by ' transferring' the alt fuel to Inter fuel and effectively the destination doesn't require an alternate then. My scenario precludes Tempo or Inter weather.
Thread Starter
And remember the inflight altn minima requirement becomes the landing minima.
The ceiling and viz for filing as alternate are only a preflight planning requirement.. Ie you need to have the altn fuel on departure but once airborne you can do whatever you like with it as long as you plan to land with final reserve.
You may continue to hold at B (burning your alternate fuel) if it is reasonable for you to assume that you can land - nothing wrong or illegal about that.
Personally, I would not commit, but go to the alternate, as for what is legal, I really am not sure.
I think that there are different inflight requirements depending upon whether an Alternate was required at the planning stage or not and over the years it has just become accepted ( by some) that in flight you can do as you wish and you remain within the law, when in fact, you can only do that if an Alternate was not required at the planning stage.
Looking forward to being proved wrong.
Framer
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: SEQ
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only law or reg is that you land with reserves in tact. As simple as that.
Firstly if you arrive in YSSY with only 20min TFC holding then you don't have the legal amount of fuel as YSSY requires 20min as a minimum at all times.
As someone has said, you need to land with your Fixed reserve in tact at the end of the landing roll. How and where you achieve that is up to you.
So for arguments sake I had fuel to hold anywhere for 25min, then I would have to divert. ATC give me a landing time 35min from now, I would think it legal to burn into my diversion fuel, hold and extra 10min and land. ie-:I have a time to expect to land and will have my required reserves in tact.
Consider this. If you hold for 10min (as used in the first post) and divert, aren't you now committed to landing in Canberra, as you don't have fuel to go anywhere else?
All the above assumes weather fuel requirements are met and the weather is not below the expected landing minima.
Firstly if you arrive in YSSY with only 20min TFC holding then you don't have the legal amount of fuel as YSSY requires 20min as a minimum at all times.
As someone has said, you need to land with your Fixed reserve in tact at the end of the landing roll. How and where you achieve that is up to you.
So for arguments sake I had fuel to hold anywhere for 25min, then I would have to divert. ATC give me a landing time 35min from now, I would think it legal to burn into my diversion fuel, hold and extra 10min and land. ie-:I have a time to expect to land and will have my required reserves in tact.
Consider this. If you hold for 10min (as used in the first post) and divert, aren't you now committed to landing in Canberra, as you don't have fuel to go anywhere else?
All the above assumes weather fuel requirements are met and the weather is not below the expected landing minima.
Last edited by The Shovel; 20th Aug 2013 at 22:41.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dont confuse company fuel policy with the regs.
the regs simply say you must have enough fuel to land safely at all times.
framer, look at your question from the other direction. regs (generally) prohibit things. they are not usually enablers. dont look for a reg that allows what you want to do. its not possible to write a reg for every possible scenario.
you should be asking where is the reg that prohibits the action proposed? i havent found one for your scenario.
i believe some confusion may lie where company fuel policy is laid out and forms part of the approved set of procedures for the aoc which generally do go into some detail about various scenarios which we need to learn and apply. all aimed at demonstrating how, as an operator, they propose to ensure every flight has a legally defensible safe fuel level at all times. as per the reg.
thats my take on it anyway
the regs simply say you must have enough fuel to land safely at all times.
framer, look at your question from the other direction. regs (generally) prohibit things. they are not usually enablers. dont look for a reg that allows what you want to do. its not possible to write a reg for every possible scenario.
you should be asking where is the reg that prohibits the action proposed? i havent found one for your scenario.
i believe some confusion may lie where company fuel policy is laid out and forms part of the approved set of procedures for the aoc which generally do go into some detail about various scenarios which we need to learn and apply. all aimed at demonstrating how, as an operator, they propose to ensure every flight has a legally defensible safe fuel level at all times. as per the reg.
thats my take on it anyway
Last edited by waren9; 20th Aug 2013 at 22:59.
Thread Starter
I understand what you're saying Shovel but it doesn't apply to the scenario we are discussing in that the weather is below Alternate Minima in the scenario.
I agree 100% as long as YSSY does not require a Wx alternate, which in this scenario, it does.
Then how do we explain away the CASA guidance to the rule stating that the Alternate fuel has to remain in tact at any point in the flight?
What I really need is a reference to a rule or reg that overrides the CAAP, but I don't think I'm going to get it.
So for arguments sake I had fuel to hold anywhere for 25min, then I would have to divert. ATC give me a landing time 35min from now, I would think it legal to burn into my diversion fuel, hold and extra 10min and land
The only law or reg is that you land with reserves in tact. As simple as that.
What I really need is a reference to a rule or reg that overrides the CAAP, but I don't think I'm going to get it.
In regards the original question.
They is no rule/reg.
Apart from what airline companies may have written into their Ops Manuals.
Can anyone point me towards any rules or regs that mention 'committing' to an airfield ( in Australia) when the current weather is below Special Alternate Minima
Apart from what airline companies may have written into their Ops Manuals.
'framer' lots of good info being postulated here:-) It's great that you started this thread as we can all learn or at least be refreshed but I think perhaps yr over thinking this a little with regards what's legal & where it say's as much.
Look at the end of the day you need to land with yr fixed fuel res intact (preferably with variable also) To simply put this whole thing in perspective you work back from the above. At any stage of the flight you need to land with the appropriate fuel on-board whether it be at yr original destination or any Alt you had planed at the planing stage (if it still applies wx wise), that's the legal part of all this & as has been said B4 how you go about that is up to you & on the day.
The reg's are laid out in Jepps for basic pre flight plan fuel req's. Flt fuel encompassing all flight phases (inc any Alt), fixed res, variable res, holding (whether that be for wx, traffic or any other contingencies such as airframe issues where a performance penalty has to be applied etc) & of course extra fuel for being a commander with doubt (about the wx for Eg).
We all know the above or where to find it inc in Ops manuals so a good read of the Jepps for Eg will answer pretty much all yr q's. All the other reg's CAO's for Eg aren't usually referred to in day to day operations otherwise we'd all be still in the briefing room trying to understand the at times convoluted rules in which we commit aviation under
I refer back to the recent MIA incident again. Those guys took off am sure with the req'd fuel but got caught out as we don't live/fly in a perfect regulated world as per the Reg's.
We have Reg's that will keep us as safe as possible if we stick to them 100% but no Reg's will ever cater for the unexpected, there in lies the difference between Commanders whom not only know the Reg's but know the environment we all fly in & make allowances for that.
Wmk2
Look at the end of the day you need to land with yr fixed fuel res intact (preferably with variable also) To simply put this whole thing in perspective you work back from the above. At any stage of the flight you need to land with the appropriate fuel on-board whether it be at yr original destination or any Alt you had planed at the planing stage (if it still applies wx wise), that's the legal part of all this & as has been said B4 how you go about that is up to you & on the day.
The reg's are laid out in Jepps for basic pre flight plan fuel req's. Flt fuel encompassing all flight phases (inc any Alt), fixed res, variable res, holding (whether that be for wx, traffic or any other contingencies such as airframe issues where a performance penalty has to be applied etc) & of course extra fuel for being a commander with doubt (about the wx for Eg).
We all know the above or where to find it inc in Ops manuals so a good read of the Jepps for Eg will answer pretty much all yr q's. All the other reg's CAO's for Eg aren't usually referred to in day to day operations otherwise we'd all be still in the briefing room trying to understand the at times convoluted rules in which we commit aviation under
I refer back to the recent MIA incident again. Those guys took off am sure with the req'd fuel but got caught out as we don't live/fly in a perfect regulated world as per the Reg's.
We have Reg's that will keep us as safe as possible if we stick to them 100% but no Reg's will ever cater for the unexpected, there in lies the difference between Commanders whom not only know the Reg's but know the environment we all fly in & make allowances for that
.Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 20th Aug 2013 at 23:13. Reason: pore speeling:-)
Thread Starter
I agree Wally and it may seem like I am trying to find a reg to 'hang my hat on' but I'm not. I'm fairly comfortable with my inflight decision making and also comfortable that it errs on the conservative side.
The thread is an attempt on my behalf to gain a clearer understanding of the regs in Australia as I operate in there a bit.
I do like to drill down and uncover things that are new to me when I am on the ground in a hotel, in the air I'm much less interested in minutia 
The thread is an attempt on my behalf to gain a clearer understanding of the regs in Australia as I operate in there a bit.
I think perhaps yr over thinking this a little with regards what's legal & where it say's as much.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: SEQ
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it does apply in your case. And in the case I provided. "If I am given a landing time I can burn my diversion fuel". If I didn't need an Alternate, I wouldn't be carrying fuel to divert. You are now confusing Alt minima and Landing Minima.
ALT minima is a planning requirement. ALT minima is always above landing minima. Landing minima is "Go Around" minima, you can't land and need fuel to divert.
If you get to YSSY and you can land off the IAP with the weather the way it is, YOU CAN LAND! With reserves intact.
I have never seen a rule that says your ALT fuel needs to remain intact. Without reading the reg I can't comment intelligently on it. I will go reading.
edited below:
In the words of the great Leo Getts, "Ok, ok , ok".
Read the AIP and CAPP.
You shouldn`t have gone to Sydney with only 10min TFC to start with, as YSSY requires at least 20min at anytime.
You can`t commit to YSSY, you have to divert.
However, now you have diverted, I bet you are committed to your diversion airport!
ALT minima is a planning requirement. ALT minima is always above landing minima. Landing minima is "Go Around" minima, you can't land and need fuel to divert.
If you get to YSSY and you can land off the IAP with the weather the way it is, YOU CAN LAND! With reserves intact.
I have never seen a rule that says your ALT fuel needs to remain intact. Without reading the reg I can't comment intelligently on it. I will go reading.
edited below:
In the words of the great Leo Getts, "Ok, ok , ok".
Read the AIP and CAPP.
You shouldn`t have gone to Sydney with only 10min TFC to start with, as YSSY requires at least 20min at anytime.
You can`t commit to YSSY, you have to divert.
However, now you have diverted, I bet you are committed to your diversion airport!
Last edited by The Shovel; 21st Aug 2013 at 01:26.
That's fine 'framer' there are no dumb Q's when it comes to aviation especially if yr in flight!......but Capt the wing seems to be flapping like a bird!!
It's good to dig deep & as I said we can all learn:-)
Many years ago there was a certain Airline Capt whom used to like flying a lighty twin down to one of the Southern Islands for crays, he would often land back at his destination drome with bugger all in the tanks & was even seen taxiing in on one donk due fuel starvation, one day he never made it back along with is female pax being only a few k's from the Rwy
"KISS" is what we pilots ought to keep in the back of our feeble minds I reckon:-)
Wmk2
......but Capt the wing seems to be flapping like a bird!!It's good to dig deep & as I said we can all learn:-)
Many years ago there was a certain Airline Capt whom used to like flying a lighty twin down to one of the Southern Islands for crays, he would often land back at his destination drome with bugger all in the tanks & was even seen taxiing in on one donk due fuel starvation, one day he never made it back along with is female pax being only a few k's from the Rwy
"KISS" is what we pilots ought to keep in the back of our feeble minds I reckon:-)
Wmk2
Maybe a read of AIP ENR 1.1 - 87
Alternate Requirements apply Preflight and Inflight.
It has nothing to do with the Landing Minima!
Here is the link AIP for those from overseas not familiar with it. You'll need to scroll to the appropriate page.
Alternate Requirements apply Preflight and Inflight.
It has nothing to do with the Landing Minima!
Here is the link AIP for those from overseas not familiar with it. You'll need to scroll to the appropriate page.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fathom if framer had set his scenario as Perth instead of sydney he would have set an entirely realistic conundrum.
alternatives for perth for something 4 engined are what?
kalgoorlie, hmmm socked in as well.
Learmonth, hmmm fuel to get half way there.
Adelaide, hmmmm....
alternatives for perth for something 4 engined are what?
kalgoorlie, hmmm socked in as well.
Learmonth, hmmm fuel to get half way there.
Adelaide, hmmmm....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I had a recent experience that may relate to this thread. An early morning arrival into a large but isolated regional airport. The forecast indicated not more than SCT cloud below alternate minima (WX, tick), flight was due to arrive more than 10 min after first light (lighting, tick), sufficient navaids (navaids, tick) = no alternate required, but a little extra fuel was carried. Check for updated forecast enroute, no change. Getting close to destination ask for latest METAR, advised that a SPECI had just been issued with cloud BKN004 (below alternate AND landing minima). New TAF issued two minutes later with BKN005 (below landing minima) to remain until a couple of hours after the arrival time.
If the flight proceeded to the destination on a hunch that a landing could be made with fixed reserves intact then maybe nobody would hear about it. However, if the flight proceeded to the destination then couldn't get visual and then subsequently declared a fuel emergency with a descent below minima to land I am sure the PIC would be asked some serious questions... In my view, it would be irresponsible to 'commit' to the destination when you now know that an alternate is not only required but almost certainly would end up being the place of landing given the slim chances of getting visual when the cloud is BKN well below landing minima. I would like to see the rule that effectively states that 'pre-flight alternate considerations can be ignored inflight' - I think I will be waiting a long time to see a reference...
With the accuracy (or lack thereof) of weather forecasts lately these 'hypothetical' situations may become more practical than we would like. Makes for good discussion!
If the flight proceeded to the destination on a hunch that a landing could be made with fixed reserves intact then maybe nobody would hear about it. However, if the flight proceeded to the destination then couldn't get visual and then subsequently declared a fuel emergency with a descent below minima to land I am sure the PIC would be asked some serious questions... In my view, it would be irresponsible to 'commit' to the destination when you now know that an alternate is not only required but almost certainly would end up being the place of landing given the slim chances of getting visual when the cloud is BKN well below landing minima. I would like to see the rule that effectively states that 'pre-flight alternate considerations can be ignored inflight' - I think I will be waiting a long time to see a reference...
With the accuracy (or lack thereof) of weather forecasts lately these 'hypothetical' situations may become more practical than we would like. Makes for good discussion!
Thread Starter
I would like to see the rule that effectively states that 'pre-flight alternate considerations can be ignored inflight' - I think I will be waiting a long time to see a reference
I'm not sure if that belief comes from
A) A different interpretation of the rules
B) Confusion with other policies such as EDTO ( references to landing minima etc) or
C) Having watched Captains do it for years thinking that the Alternate Minima doesn't apply when really there was no Alternate requirement because they had Tempo fuel.
Either way it is interesting to see how wide and varied the responses have been.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty sure Fathom is on the money.
If the airport requires a fixed weather alternate, you have to either land with alternate fuel intact or divert. Sure you might then be committed to the alternate, but by definition it shouldn't require an alternate itself. A landing time from ATC isn't good enough - that's purely a sequencing thing, and doesn't change the weather (or the requirements).
The big traps present themselves with changes after PNR (e.g. Mildura).
In my opinion the situation is more grey with INTER/TEMPO holding when you're holding enroute/on descent.
If the airport requires a fixed weather alternate, you have to either land with alternate fuel intact or divert. Sure you might then be committed to the alternate, but by definition it shouldn't require an alternate itself. A landing time from ATC isn't good enough - that's purely a sequencing thing, and doesn't change the weather (or the requirements).
The big traps present themselves with changes after PNR (e.g. Mildura).
In my opinion the situation is more grey with INTER/TEMPO holding when you're holding enroute/on descent.
Last edited by *Lancer*; 21st Aug 2013 at 03:31.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 59
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There isn't a rule to do it because you wouldn't plan to do it.
Some years ago there was a fight at Moorabbin over this when an inbound aircraft was trying to land after the airport had been closed due to Wx.
CAA explained that if the pilot had declared an emergency then he would have been legally able to land (which he had done by eventually telling the tower operator to get XXXX he was coming in.)
Some years ago there was a fight at Moorabbin over this when an inbound aircraft was trying to land after the airport had been closed due to Wx.
CAA explained that if the pilot had declared an emergency then he would have been legally able to land (which he had done by eventually telling the tower operator to get XXXX he was coming in.)
Last edited by Wallsofchina; 21st Aug 2013 at 04:08.
Thread Starter
There isn't a rule to do it because you wouldn't plan to do it.
Logic would say do the hold, fly the ILS and land. if you stuff it up, you still have fuel to have another shot.
Right at the start of the thread I pointed out that I was digging into the legal aspects and not airmanship or decision making. It's damn near impossible to do on Pprune but I think we sort of got there.
Anyway, thanks for the input.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Framer CAR 220 states
The CAAP you mentioned is only 1 way of complying with the above. As stated above the operator is responisble for including the fuel requirements their operation in their Operations Manual.
If your operator decides to copy That CAAP directly into the ops manual then you have no choice but to follow what it says. Other operators might have a different way of complying
The only hard rules that I could find in the regs were in the AIP ENR section 1.1 - 97 & 98
(60.2 says to do what the operator has laid out, 60.4.1 continues on to say 'but ensure that you land with no less than fixed fuel reserve, (60.6.1 - 'except in an emergency')
Fuel instructions and records
(1) An operator shall include in the operator’s operations manual specific instructions for the computation of the quantities of fuel to be carried on each route, having regard to all the circumstances of the operations, including the possibility of failure of an engine en route.
(1) An operator shall include in the operator’s operations manual specific instructions for the computation of the quantities of fuel to be carried on each route, having regard to all the circumstances of the operations, including the possibility of failure of an engine en route.
If your operator decides to copy That CAAP directly into the ops manual then you have no choice but to follow what it says. Other operators might have a different way of complying
The only hard rules that I could find in the regs were in the AIP ENR section 1.1 - 97 & 98
(60.2 says to do what the operator has laid out, 60.4.1 continues on to say 'but ensure that you land with no less than fixed fuel reserve, (60.6.1 - 'except in an emergency')
60.2 Air Operator Certificate (AOC) Holders
Fuel requirements for aircraft operated under an AOC are as approved in the company Operations Manual
60.4 In-Flight Fuel Management
60.4.1 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 fixed fuel reserve remaining upon landing.
60.4.2 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 fixed fuel reserve plus any fuel required to proceed to an alternate aerodrome or the fuel required to operate to an isolated aerodrome.
Note: There is no specific phraseology in this case as each situation may be different.
60.5 Minimum Fuel
60.5.1 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 ex- isting clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than planned fixed fuel reserve.
Note 1: The declaration of MINIMUM FUEL informs ATC that all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aero- drome of intended landing and any change to the existing clear- ance may result in landing with less than planned fixed fuel re- serve. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur.
Note 2: Pilots should not expect any form of priority handling as a result of a “MINIMUM FUEL” declaration. ATC will, however, ad- vise the flight crew of any additional expected delays as well as co- ordinate when transferring control of the aeroplane to ensure other ATC units are aware of the flight’s fuel state.
60.6 Emergency Fuel
60.6.1 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 fixed fuel reserve and as a result of this predicted fuel state, the aircraft requires immediate assistance.
Note: MAYDAY FUEL declaration is a distress message. A dis- tress message is reported when the pilot in command has as- sessed the aircraft is threatened with grave and imminent danger and requires immediate assistance.
60.6.2 It is a requirement in any case where an aircraft lands with less than its planned fixed fuel reserve that the pilot-in-command shall consider the event an immediately reportable matter and file the required report.
Fuel requirements for aircraft operated under an AOC are as approved in the company Operations Manual
60.4 In-Flight Fuel Management
60.4.1 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 fixed fuel reserve remaining upon landing.
60.4.2 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 fixed fuel reserve plus any fuel required to proceed to an alternate aerodrome or the fuel required to operate to an isolated aerodrome.
Note: There is no specific phraseology in this case as each situation may be different.
60.5 Minimum Fuel
60.5.1 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 ex- isting clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than planned fixed fuel reserve.
Note 1: The declaration of MINIMUM FUEL informs ATC that all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aero- drome of intended landing and any change to the existing clear- ance may result in landing with less than planned fixed fuel re- serve. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur.
Note 2: Pilots should not expect any form of priority handling as a result of a “MINIMUM FUEL” declaration. ATC will, however, ad- vise the flight crew of any additional expected delays as well as co- ordinate when transferring control of the aeroplane to ensure other ATC units are aware of the flight’s fuel state.
60.6 Emergency Fuel
60.6.1 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 fixed fuel reserve and as a result of this predicted fuel state, the aircraft requires immediate assistance.
Note: MAYDAY FUEL declaration is a distress message. A dis- tress message is reported when the pilot in command has as- sessed the aircraft is threatened with grave and imminent danger and requires immediate assistance.
60.6.2 It is a requirement in any case where an aircraft lands with less than its planned fixed fuel reserve that the pilot-in-command shall consider the event an immediately reportable matter and file the required report.
60.4.2 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 fixed fuel reserve plus any fuel required to proceed to an alternate aerodrome or the fuel required to operate to an isolated aerodrome.
Note: There is no specific phraseology in this case as each situ- ation may be different.
Note: There is no specific phraseology in this case as each situ- ation may be different.
