When to declare Pan for fuel state
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: With your sister
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When to declare Pan for fuel state
Hi guys, old post but i cant find the relevent information in the AIP. Is it MANDATORY to declare Pan-pan-pan if you THINK you MAY eat into your reserves? And again, is it MANDATORY to declare mayday if you actually do?
I'm from australia, so Australian rules only... Cheers
I'm from australia, so Australian rules only... Cheers
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm from australia, so Australian rules only... Cheers
EUOPS says:
"..the commander shall declare an emergency when calculated usable fuel on landing, at the nearest adequate aerodrome where a safe landing can be performed, is less than final reserve fuel."
but does not specify the 'may be less' than scenario which is where a PAN call is normal - but that is really commonsense..
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pan if you THINK you MAY eat into your reserves
Dont you have sops?normally the clever guys do the work so you dont get to guess...
Pan pan if you get too close to min reserve and rather feel unconfortable with any extra delay..ie:you are tossing and turning into your seat.
Mayday if you know you are going to land at reserve level and anything less than a straight in isnt good enough.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: chances are, not at home
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30 minutes fuel. I thought that was pretty standard.
As an aside, do people actually declare on freq that they are 'committing to stay' or commit to destination? - I have never ever heard it said, but many many arrivals into eg LHR must do it from time to time (ie burn the diversion fuel whilst holding to land at the destination) [2 independant r/ws yadda yadda].
Unfortunately my current ops manual makes no provision for committing, so I must divert when I reach div+reserve, even if the div field looks less certain than the destination.
As an aside, do people actually declare on freq that they are 'committing to stay' or commit to destination? - I have never ever heard it said, but many many arrivals into eg LHR must do it from time to time (ie burn the diversion fuel whilst holding to land at the destination) [2 independant r/ws yadda yadda].
Unfortunately my current ops manual makes no provision for committing, so I must divert when I reach div+reserve, even if the div field looks less certain than the destination.
Joe,
As a frequent user of Heathrow, I've never heard anyone say they are committing to their destination. I have heard plenty of people diverting when they don't have enough fuel for the given holding time/EAT. I've gone into my diversion fuel on a few occasions but it's nobody else's business so why declare it? Although Heathrow is far and away the most likely place to have to hold for, the Heathrow controllers do usually give accurate delay information. Conversely, I recently flew into a large European airport in a country noted for its efficiency. Fifteen miles from the IAF we were told to hold and expect a twenty minute delay. Just before entering the hold it was cancelled and we were given a tighter than normal approach (as were the other inbounds at that time, from what I could hear).
As a frequent user of Heathrow, I've never heard anyone say they are committing to their destination. I have heard plenty of people diverting when they don't have enough fuel for the given holding time/EAT. I've gone into my diversion fuel on a few occasions but it's nobody else's business so why declare it? Although Heathrow is far and away the most likely place to have to hold for, the Heathrow controllers do usually give accurate delay information. Conversely, I recently flew into a large European airport in a country noted for its efficiency. Fifteen miles from the IAF we were told to hold and expect a twenty minute delay. Just before entering the hold it was cancelled and we were given a tighter than normal approach (as were the other inbounds at that time, from what I could hear).
