Where did the 'Mayday fuel' statement come from?

[Nulli Secundus]

Dick Smith 16/07/2018: 'I hate sitting and watching the death throes of GA and I would do anything I could possibly do to stop this from happening, however I have a feeling that the quicker it happens, the quicker it will be fixed'
Dick Smith 28/08/2018: 'Once again I say to everyone get out of aviation as quick as you can. If you stay in you will lose more'

Yesterday: 'I am sure most will agree we have to be very wary of the cry wolf principle'

Dick, please explain to everyone your motive for your contradictory positions: 1. get out of aviation - quick! but, 2. Following my herein published correspondence with the Minister, can we begin discussions on fuel procedures in the industry? 3. Would I be correct to rule out self promotion and the maintenance of relevance in the public eye and the aviation community?

[RubberDogPoop]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

A friend in the USA has sent me the current FAA requirements in relation to “minimum fuel” and declaring a “fuel emergency”. Note that there is no mention of the word “Mayday”.

I wonder if this is just another case where the US will be notifying a difference with ICAO. I understand the USA has filed more differences with ICAO than any other country. Once a senior FAA staffer said:

Dick, I imagine your friend will also point out that Americans "declare an emergency", rather that "Mayday" for any other "run-of-the-mill" emergency too.....

[Dick Smith]

Here is further information I received from the USA on this issue:

“The FAA is moving towards a “compliance philosophy” that de-emphasises penalties in favour of actions designed to help a pilot comply in the future.

It almost feels like CASA is wanting to punish pilots for getting low on fuel.”

[LeadSled]

Originally Posted by RubberDogPoop

Dick, I imagine your friend will also point out that Americans "declare an emergency", rather that "Mayday" for any other "run-of-the-mill" emergency too.....

RDP,
Would you like to quote a reference from the FARs/AIM/whatever.
Mayday is alive and well in the FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary, US states it conforms to ICAO SARPS for emergencies, and files no difference for Mayday, as far as I can find.
Any pilot is naturally reluctant (particularly in Australia - where many would rather die, as the lesser penalty) to use the term, because of the bureaucratic investigative storm use of the word triggers.
Tootle pip!!

[Lapon]

Sure- like the world should accept pilot discretion for approach minima, MSA, MTOW and should accept company discretion for Flight and Duty times.

Who needs rules?

I was not implying that rules shouldn't exist, rather that pilot discretion should be used to determine if his/her situation constitutes an emergency.

One poster mentioned the peril of a go around from min fuel in a heavy jet, although I'm sure a min fuel go around at a country field in a kingair would be a comparative non event.

Anyway, I'll fetch my coat and get with the rest of the world.

[Dick Smith]

Nulli Secundus, my statement in relation to getting out of aviation obviously does not refer to the major operators. They are making a fortune and the more general aviation is damaged, the more money they will make. Whether you put the word “Mayday” in front of a fuel requirement has no cost effect.

I can’t see why my thread is not consistent with my previous statements in relation to getting out of aviation.

From time to time I receive emails from people asking advice about what they should do with their aviation business and my advice at the present time is to get out. That is because I don’t see any light on the horizon in relation to reducing unnecessary costs. The fact that the statement “CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration” remains just shows how serious the problems are.

Until the Act is changed to reflect the truth I must admit I don’t see any light on the horizon.

[Nulli Secundus]

Nevertheless, & noting your response answers questions never asked, Dick Smith I put it to you again:

please explain to everyone your motive for your contradictory positions: 1. get out of aviation - quick! but, 2. Following my herein published correspondence with the Minister, can we begin discussions on fuel procedures in the industry? 3. Would I be correct to rule out self promotion and the maintenance of relevance in the public eye and the aviation community?

The advice to get out is not exclusively offered to business owners is it Dick? Its also to staff and its also offered to private individuals. Meanwhile, AOPA et al work tirelessly to gain members. More members means more influence and more influence means change! So by all means you can begin discussions that facilitate views on fuel/ operations/ safety etc. but at the same time you can't also drive people away from the industry. They are conflicting positions and they are inconsistent. You have to nail your colours to the mast and declare which position you truly believe, but you can't have both.

Choosing to not declare why you run two inconsistent positions means you should be challenge in regards to your motive. Want to lead, be prepared to be questioned!

[Clare Prop]

Dick the only reason to close a business at the moment would be because it is so difficult to find qualified staff to meet the demand which is increasing at a rate I haven't seen for many years, despite the doom and gloom you like to push in the media.

Good thing I don't have to email strangers for business advice or I probably wouldn't be in this position where years of graft and investment are paying off very nicely.

AS for "mayday fuel" I can't think of a single time in 13,000 hours that I have come anywhere close to being in the situation where CASA say it should be used so it really is a non issue.

[Wizofoz]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

A friend in the USA has sent me the current FAA requirements in relation to “minimum fuel” and declaring a “fuel emergency”. Note that there is no mention of the word “Mayday”.

I wonder if this is just another case where the US will be notifying a difference with ICAO. I understand the USA has filed more differences with ICAO than any other country. Once a senior FAA staffer said:

Dick,

The very FAA document you quote talks about "declaring a fuel emergency." "Pan" is an expression of URGENCY, NOT emergency.

Now, I believe we have a phrase we use when the situation escalates to "emergency"- it's "Mayday".

What exactly is your objection to using the recognized phrase to declare an emergency in a situation you agree is an emergency?

[ACMS]

NIKE.

its not hard folks.

just do it.

[Derfred]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

Whether you put the word “Mayday” in front of a fuel requirement has no cost effect.

Oh, yes it does....

As a private operator who probably doesn’t worry about cost of fuel carriage, you may not truly understand what I’m about to say, but here goes anyway:

For the following, I’m going to use the word “aircraft” rather than “pilot” or “operator”, because in commercial operations it is a joint responsibility (PIC has final say obviously but there is operator pressure in some operations).

If an aircraft finds itself in a position that it will be landing with less than Final Reserve (fixed reserve in the old lingo), it needs to call “Mayday Fuel”. This ensures priority handling by ATC, but it also ensures emergency services are activated and a subsequent ATSB investigation. It also ensures front page news.

And so it should.

Any aircraft landing with less than that needs to be investigated. If the investegation finds multiple events beyond the control of the pilot or operator, the investigation may turn to analysis of the events, including forecasting, slot management etc, but 30 minutes is set in sand as a line that thou shalt not cross for good reason, whether it be an A380, Cessna or whatever. When that line gets crossed, people want to know why, and I’m one of them.

Now, commercial operators and pilots alike do not like ATSB investigations, nor do they enjoy front page news. If landing less than Final Reserve puts them in that basket, then good.

Why? Because pilots and operators will (hopefully) do all they can to avoid being put in that position. Including perhaps, loading more fuel at departure, delaying the departure, diverting earlier, stopping enroute for more fuel, using an aircraft more suited to the range, or not departing in the first place. All of which cost real money.

So don’t even think about telling me that using the word “Mayday” on the radio has no cost effect on an operator or a pilot.

[donpizmeov]

By having said Mayday fuel, I don't feel as bad when I tell ATC I won't be going around, as they request, but rather will be landing behind the fella in front who was slow to vacate .

it's a simple procedure. Recognised by most of the world . Just like any procedure dealing with a low fuel state should be .

[FlightDetent]

Originally Posted by Lapon

Why can't the world just accept pilot discretion as to what constitutes mayday fuel?

Because we failed to deliver on that promise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52 And being human, we would again. Don't let our self-perceived sense of getting it right put lives in danger, that is how the game is played. It is larger than us.

[Derfred]

Here’s how it actually works in practice (or should):

Melbourne TAF calls for 340/10-15 CAVOK.

Pilot A, let’s call him A20, plans to land at Melbourne with Final Reserve + 20 minutes, as per advisory holding.

Pilot B, lets call him B40, plans to land at Melbourne with Final Reserve + 40 minutes, because he suspects the possibility of increased holding due to single runway operations if the northerly winds increase.

Let’s assume A20 and B40 are converging on Melbourne at a similar time, but B40 is ahead in the landing sequence.

ATC advise both A20 and B40 to hold inbound, expected holding time 15 minutes.

No problem.

Suddenly an aircraft does a go-around.

ATC advice to both A20 and B40, expected delay now 20 mins.

It is now incumbent on A20 to advise ATC “Minimum Fuel”. That is not a PAN, it is merely an advice to ATC that any further delay will result in the aircraft arriving with less than Final Reserve. That is advisory information to ATC. It is not a demand to jump the queue in the landing sequence. Any request to jump the queue at this point can (and should) be denied.

A few minutes later, Melbourne changes mode to RWY34 single runway ops due to an increased northerly wind.

ATC advise both A20 and B40 that holding is now 30 mins.

A20 responds that they are unable to hold for 30 mins due fuel.

ATC says “OK, what are your intentions?”

A20 says “Our intentions are to land in Melbourne”

ATC says “30 minute delay for that, I have weather for Adelaide and Sydney when you’re ready to copy”

A20 says, “Minimum fuel, we need to land in Melbourne, we need priority landing.”

ATC says “Well, you’ll need to declare an emergency for that, otherwise state diversion airport.”

A20 now has the choice to declare “Mayday Fuel” or divert. The main point being, you don’t get to jump the queue unless it’s an emergency, ie Mayday.

Question: should ATC put A20 in front of B40 simply because he chose not to carry fuel?

The official answer is no, Unless A20 declares “Mayday Fuel”, and accepts the incoming associated with it.

Should ATC be in the business of rewarding airlines for carrying min fuel?

[haughtney1]

All well and good Defred, except of course a professional aviator will have anticipated the change in holding times you describe and should already have that plan B up their sleeve.
Never had a “Mayday Fuel” to cope with, but most definitely have called “minimum fuel” a few times...as the intent is to communicate to ATC my actual fuel state, if they subsequently ignore that..well as Don says..they can deal with a Mayday if based on the company fuel policy and state of operator regulations.
I have however committed to landing my destination a number of times (which is a whole other can of worms)
Quite right that ATC aren’t there to reward minimum fuel carriage, but at the same time I need them to work for me.

[LookingForAJob]

Now, I step with some trepidation into a debate mainly about Australian procedures (of which I have very little knowledge and zero experience, coming from the other side of the world), but.....

I was with Derfred and his/her practical explanation....all the way up to the last line. My own view is that ATC is nor, or should not be in the business of rewarding or penalising any aircraft operator. Rather ATC should get on with sorting the traffic out is the most efficient way overall - no favours or special handling involved.

On to the original question, I'm not sure when ICAO adopted the phraseology and meanings that have been well explained here but I do recall in the UK some 20 or 25 years ago there were instances, mainly from one operators, where the crew were telling ATC 'We're getting a little tight on fuel' and often the controller, being a simple, caring human being, would maybe give a bit of priority to that aircraft all other things being equal. Of course it didn't take long before other operators wised up and would make similar claims. The CAA then issued guidance that said, if a pilot makes noises about fuel remaining the controller asks if the pilot wants to declare an emergency - simple question and quick answer. If it's 'yes', that aircraft gets all the priority available, if it's a 'no' then all the flight planning rules are working just fine and the aircraft will land with the legally required reserves.....won't it.

[RubberDogPoop]

Originally Posted by LeadSled

RDP,
Would you like to quote a reference from the FARs/AIM/whatever.
Mayday is alive and well in the FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary, US states it conforms to ICAO SARPS for emergencies, and files no difference for Mayday, as far as I can find.
Any pilot is naturally reluctant (particularly in Australia - where many would rather die, as the lesser penalty) to use the term, because of the bureaucratic investigative storm use of the word triggers.
Tootle pip!!

No. not at all because I made no such inference that the term was absent from the aforementioned documents, however, working experience thus far has encountered exactly zero "Mayday,Mayday,Mayday" calls from American crews and yet several "we are declaring an emergency", or the ATC question: "do you wish to declare an emergency?"
Purely as an observation to Dick's statement: "A friend in the USA has sent me the current FAA requirements in relation to “minimum fuel” and declaring a “fuel emergency”. Note that there is no ”mention of the word “Mayday."" (My bolding), I'd suggest the term is not in widespread American usage anyway - thus, in isolation it is not particularly supportive of his argument....No more, no less.

[Check_Thrust]

Derfred,

From the AIP
Minimum Fuel: The term used to describe a situation when an aircraft's fuel supply has reached a state where 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 fixed fuel reserve for the flight.

Note: The minimum fuel state is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur.

After declaring "Minimum Fuel" I doubt that the response will be "state your diversion airport" as by definition you have supposedly committed yourself to land at the destination.

[Derfred]

Perhaps so. My point is that “minimum fuel” is not designed for queue jumping, “Mayday Fuel” is.

[Dick Smith]

If a pilot of a small private aircraft is in the circuit area of a country airport and finds that the landing will be completed with less than 30 minutes of fuel does this require the “ mayday fuel “ call to ATC?