Virgin 'low fuel' MAYDAY
Reference my post a couple of days ago referring to autumnal weather in the UK. Here's tomorrows TAF for LHR.
More fuel Sir?
121630Z 130024 VRB05KT 4000 BR SCT030 TEMPO 0010
1400 MIFG PROB40 TEMPO 0310 0200 FG VV/// PROB40
TEMPO 1013 BKN004 BECMG 1215 8000 NSW TEMPO 2024
3000 BR -
1400 MIFG PROB40 TEMPO 0310 0200 FG VV/// PROB40
TEMPO 1013 BKN004 BECMG 1215 8000 NSW TEMPO 2024
3000 BR -
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGSC - I take your point and accept it. To make it perfectly clear a Pan or Mayday should be made. But if it isn't, and clearly there is a reluctance some times for these to be made (don't ask me why), and an ATCO has ignored a statement that an aircraft is short of fuel - IF something nasty happens, I would expect the ATCO to be one of the defendants. That is just the way things are these days, and it would probably be a good idea to wise up and not rely on some CAA position statement
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat
You're probably right. Legal precedent was set about 20 years ago in a court case following the crash of a B20 (CFIT). In his summing up the judge basically said that had ATC known that a dangerous situation existed and not issued a warning, then ATC would have been be liable (in that particular case ATC were aquitted).
I think maybe the point is that in the UK, when the captain indicates he has a fuel problem he will aways be asked if he wishes to declare a Pan or Mayday. If he says no, he will then be informed that unless he does, immediate assistance will not be forthcomming.
.4
You're probably right. Legal precedent was set about 20 years ago in a court case following the crash of a B20 (CFIT). In his summing up the judge basically said that had ATC known that a dangerous situation existed and not issued a warning, then ATC would have been be liable (in that particular case ATC were aquitted).
I think maybe the point is that in the UK, when the captain indicates he has a fuel problem he will aways be asked if he wishes to declare a Pan or Mayday. If he says no, he will then be informed that unless he does, immediate assistance will not be forthcomming.
.4
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Somewhere in Britain
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat - As an ATCO if I had the situation you described, you tend to get a funny feeling your water that all is not well. He/she would probably be afforded priority even though he/she hadn't declared and the relevant paperwork filled in. Better to be safe than sorry!! I agree though that it's not a nice situation to be in.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes ETOPS. More fuel!
I am appalled by most have what I have read here. Dan Air 87 offered wise comment, something I once took for granted as surely drummed into everyone who ever got an ATPL. Hopefully drummed into every new PPL too, but I know it isn't. How can it be when they can read all this diversity of opinion at the highest levels? What's this talk about the $10,000 cost of diversions as if it is a factor in your decision in how safely you will continue. Surely you don't mean that?
I flew as a long haul passenger just once there and back. Virgin. 1991. Same kind of problem I reckon. Landed in very thick fog at Cardiff. So did another. A third went to Orly. I was in Upper as it was then. Near the door and cabin crew discussions after the event. First and last man-made shape I saw out of my window seat before touchdown was the grey rectangular outline of the top of a fire engine to the left of the beginning of the runway. Kerplonk! Taxied to apron. Only one set of steps so couldn't get off. We were told fog at Gatwick. Earlier perhaps. Holding at Gatwick? Now yes that would be a natural consequence. Sit tight we're refuelling. Landed Gatwick only about 90 mins late I think. Brilliant clear skies. Fog? Problem? Where? Cardiff that's where. Was I glad we diverted ? I was glad we didn't run out of fuel. I was a bit surprised that Cardiff took 747s in thick fog. I'd flown myself out of it in DR400 6 months earlier yet still had no idea it was that big! Was I annoyed we were 90 minutes late? Not really.
I think I still have a letter somewhere from RB about that one. Usual guff.
Here we are 15 years later and I was expecting to read something approaching developed science. But no, all we seem to have is commercial art based on 'managing' the apparently even more ambiguous rules that pervade in this low cost world (cos here you all are presenting more variations than you seem to have agreed) and 'negotiating' with ATC to modify your pulserate to suit your appetite for paperwork, rather than communicating to ensure that whatever happens my pulserate is 100% guaranteed to remain above zero
And here too we seem to have ATCOs saying they expect a few tight ones and they have the sticking plasters to make it better but only a few to go round each morning so no pretending you need one??
Am I reading this right?
No wonder since August it's inconvenient to be a pilot without deodorant. Sounds like there ought to be one of those automatic lemon squirters in every long haul cabin, always aimed right in your eye, just one quick squirt every time the refuelling pipe is disconnected and you have started to commit aviation. Just so's you get the message from the back.
MORE FUEL. PLEASE.
I am appalled by most have what I have read here. Dan Air 87 offered wise comment, something I once took for granted as surely drummed into everyone who ever got an ATPL. Hopefully drummed into every new PPL too, but I know it isn't. How can it be when they can read all this diversity of opinion at the highest levels? What's this talk about the $10,000 cost of diversions as if it is a factor in your decision in how safely you will continue. Surely you don't mean that?
I flew as a long haul passenger just once there and back. Virgin. 1991. Same kind of problem I reckon. Landed in very thick fog at Cardiff. So did another. A third went to Orly. I was in Upper as it was then. Near the door and cabin crew discussions after the event. First and last man-made shape I saw out of my window seat before touchdown was the grey rectangular outline of the top of a fire engine to the left of the beginning of the runway. Kerplonk! Taxied to apron. Only one set of steps so couldn't get off. We were told fog at Gatwick. Earlier perhaps. Holding at Gatwick? Now yes that would be a natural consequence. Sit tight we're refuelling. Landed Gatwick only about 90 mins late I think. Brilliant clear skies. Fog? Problem? Where? Cardiff that's where. Was I glad we diverted ? I was glad we didn't run out of fuel. I was a bit surprised that Cardiff took 747s in thick fog. I'd flown myself out of it in DR400 6 months earlier yet still had no idea it was that big! Was I annoyed we were 90 minutes late? Not really.
I think I still have a letter somewhere from RB about that one. Usual guff.
Here we are 15 years later and I was expecting to read something approaching developed science. But no, all we seem to have is commercial art based on 'managing' the apparently even more ambiguous rules that pervade in this low cost world (cos here you all are presenting more variations than you seem to have agreed) and 'negotiating' with ATC to modify your pulserate to suit your appetite for paperwork, rather than communicating to ensure that whatever happens my pulserate is 100% guaranteed to remain above zero
And here too we seem to have ATCOs saying they expect a few tight ones and they have the sticking plasters to make it better but only a few to go round each morning so no pretending you need one??
Am I reading this right?
No wonder since August it's inconvenient to be a pilot without deodorant. Sounds like there ought to be one of those automatic lemon squirters in every long haul cabin, always aimed right in your eye, just one quick squirt every time the refuelling pipe is disconnected and you have started to commit aviation. Just so's you get the message from the back.
MORE FUEL. PLEASE.
Late Developer
Fog can clear very quickly once the temperature starts to pick up. The fire engine could have been there for any number of reasons.
I don't believe that VS take any less fuel than any other long haul operator. As has been said by many experienced pilots on this thread already, the best laid plans of mice and men sometimes go wrong and a diversion can become necessary.
I think I'd rather rely on the flight crews judgement of how much fuel to take, rather than listening to demands from the back.
Fog can clear very quickly once the temperature starts to pick up. The fire engine could have been there for any number of reasons.
I don't believe that VS take any less fuel than any other long haul operator. As has been said by many experienced pilots on this thread already, the best laid plans of mice and men sometimes go wrong and a diversion can become necessary.
I think I'd rather rely on the flight crews judgement of how much fuel to take, rather than listening to demands from the back.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As expected.
I didn't question why the fire engine was there. I was just using the fact that it was the only thing I saw before touchdown as an example of how low the visibility was at Cardiff.
Three Virgins diverted that morning.
I know fog can lift pretty quick. Once upon a time I could tell you how quick because I used to rely on it to stalk pigeons!
I also know that early morning fog at early morning busy airports causes holds for some time afterwards.
No one said Gatwick was closed at any point and it really was brilliant clear and we did not hold 90 minutes later, so I made my simple deductions:
Virgins can land in thick fog but Virgins couldn't hold for long that morning. Three of them. Why? Not enough fuel. And how many times again and again over fifteen years?
Do you think I am wrong or what?
I am damn sure they aint the only operator who make the same mistakes.
I fully accept pilots make mistakes, but I am also damned sure now there are too many flying yes men. Not sure about flying yes women. I can barely imagine one because they are generally designed differently.
Bring on the ranking Danny by all means, I've formed my opinion and I ain't looking for votes or publishing rights.
I didn't question why the fire engine was there. I was just using the fact that it was the only thing I saw before touchdown as an example of how low the visibility was at Cardiff.
Three Virgins diverted that morning.
I know fog can lift pretty quick. Once upon a time I could tell you how quick because I used to rely on it to stalk pigeons!
I also know that early morning fog at early morning busy airports causes holds for some time afterwards.
No one said Gatwick was closed at any point and it really was brilliant clear and we did not hold 90 minutes later, so I made my simple deductions:
Virgins can land in thick fog but Virgins couldn't hold for long that morning. Three of them. Why? Not enough fuel. And how many times again and again over fifteen years?
Do you think I am wrong or what?
I am damn sure they aint the only operator who make the same mistakes.
I fully accept pilots make mistakes, but I am also damned sure now there are too many flying yes men. Not sure about flying yes women. I can barely imagine one because they are generally designed differently.
Bring on the ranking Danny by all means, I've formed my opinion and I ain't looking for votes or publishing rights.
What's this talk about the $10,000 cost of diversions as if it is a factor in your decision in how safely you will continue. Surely you don't mean that?
PS. If you can divert a long haul aircraft for $10,000 you are doing pretty well, you could easily add another zero in some circumstances.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I make no apology if this post gets up your nose. Maybe it needs another squirt.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: SE UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, late developer, I believe there is more than a grain of truth in what you suggest. I welcome input from the 'back' about how you feel. (Not while I am operating, mind you.) Getting the balance right is what we are paid for. However, coming into SE England around dawn this morning, I would try to have an extra 45 to 60 minutes of fuel if I could. I would also keep a very close eye on all possible divs (as would all pilots) because if you are diverting, you can bet your bottom dollar that a whole load of other aircraft are as well which means that you will need more than the computed minimum div fuel.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a word, no. If you start shouting Mayday because you think you might run short of fuel then the CAA will have a quiet word in your ear. That may not fit with your simplistic approach to things but thats the way it works.
And what qualifies you to make that judgement then, apart from having a PPL and once having sat on a 747 ten years ago? The answer? Nothing at all. You really have no idea what goes on in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft, but let me explain something to you. When we go to work we are the safety manager and the commercial manager for that flight. Thats our job description. Its what we get paid for. We juggle priorities. Safety first. When safety is assured we then assess the commerical priorities. We may seek guidance from the company as to where they would like us to go, but it is our decision and our decision alone. Not somebody on the ground at company HQ and certainly not some underqualified back seat driver who thinks that on the basis of 240 hours in a Cessna that they have a valid opinion or that we even care. Whilst you like to make a big deal about three Virgin aircraft diverting to Cardiff, perhaps you'd like to tell us what the weather forceast was for the London area at the time those flights departed, or how many other airlines aircraft diverted to other airfields that day. I suspect you have no idea, something which is amply demonstrated in your posts.
And yes, you are wrong. Diversions are part of the business and a calculated commerical risk. Eventually you'll get caught out and have to divert but that costs less than carrying extra fuel for the 99.9% of flights where you won't need it.
Originally Posted by Late Developer
Yes. But considering the commercial implications of a decision not yet made to divert on safety grounds is NOT your affair, never was and never will be so just fly the damn plane, please. If your fuel economy plans have gone for a ball of chalk then be sure you know which hat you put on to deal with it. If you discover a planning mistake like those discussed in this thread as a Pilot in the air then you WILL play Commercial Manager when you get back on the ground and not before.
I make no apology if this post gets up your nose. Maybe it needs another squirt.
I make no apology if this post gets up your nose. Maybe it needs another squirt.
And yes, you are wrong. Diversions are part of the business and a calculated commerical risk. Eventually you'll get caught out and have to divert but that costs less than carrying extra fuel for the 99.9% of flights where you won't need it.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: No longer in Hong kong
Age: 75
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Carnage, I seem to remember meeting you on the "FRAGRANT HARBOUR" link under the "Hkg Atc" thread not too long ago. You certainly seemed to have some forthright opinions about HK ATC then. I could then have opined something along the lines of your statement to Mr Late Developer, that "what makes you qualified etc etc..." I did answer you (in a pretty errudite and informative way) as to your squawks re HK, but you seemed to lose interest when I pointed out a few "reasons" for why events happen as they do, and you disappeared off my radar screen. Maybe I will meet you one day at the Dickens bar....I should be able to recognise you!! You will be the guy giving the bar man a hard time for putting ice in your Gin & Tonic! Peace my friend, let LD have is say, maybe he has helped pay your salary at some point in time.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: LHR/LGW
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bedder - Late developer has been allowed his say, several times, and his viewpoint is clear and is noted.
However, like Carnage last post (93), I also believe LD is talking well above his weight. He is clearly not in a position to be offering that level of advice about things he knows little about. This is not a sleight against him, he simply lacks the experience and knowledge to appreciate the complexity of the operation!
Anything said in another thread would seem to have little bearing about the point being made by Carnage. The points he makes here and now are valid. Period!
Late developer - just so that you are left in no doubt - "Just flying the aircraft" is a very small part of the operation. As has already been pointed out to you; whilst airborne the crew make all the decisions. If they are wise they will listen to the advice offered both by ATC and the Company but it is the crew that make all the decisions - in the order Safety then commercial.
However, like Carnage last post (93), I also believe LD is talking well above his weight. He is clearly not in a position to be offering that level of advice about things he knows little about. This is not a sleight against him, he simply lacks the experience and knowledge to appreciate the complexity of the operation!
Anything said in another thread would seem to have little bearing about the point being made by Carnage. The points he makes here and now are valid. Period!
Late developer - just so that you are left in no doubt - "Just flying the aircraft" is a very small part of the operation. As has already been pointed out to you; whilst airborne the crew make all the decisions. If they are wise they will listen to the advice offered both by ATC and the Company but it is the crew that make all the decisions - in the order Safety then commercial.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Late Developer.
It is entirely reasonable for you to expect that your safety will be paramount in your Captain's mind.
To survive, commercial aviation must strike an efficient balance, where safety is number one but not with such huge margins that it makes flying economically impossible. There are over a million air transport operations in and out of UK airports each year. I would be guessing, but I bet that less than 100 of those involve some sort of fuel shortage and way fewer involve a diversion due fuel. No single operator seems to be having proportionally more 'occurrances' than others and I am not aware that we have yet had a fuel related accident; you are paying in the £100s for a ticket to New York.
Yes, we do have the occasional fuel incident, which we work together to resolve and yes, we do need to understand why they occur, but wouldn't you say that on balance the professionals up front are getting it about right?
Professional aircrew:
Going back to a point made earlier about the impact on other operators when one aircraft has a fuel problem: It is worth remembering that we now have procedures for sterilising runways where a go-around would exacerbate a problem - Pan due fuel comes into that category. It basically means 15nm ahead of you rather than the extra mile or so that we have historically given you. 15 miles is 5 medium sized movements.
.4
It is entirely reasonable for you to expect that your safety will be paramount in your Captain's mind.
To survive, commercial aviation must strike an efficient balance, where safety is number one but not with such huge margins that it makes flying economically impossible. There are over a million air transport operations in and out of UK airports each year. I would be guessing, but I bet that less than 100 of those involve some sort of fuel shortage and way fewer involve a diversion due fuel. No single operator seems to be having proportionally more 'occurrances' than others and I am not aware that we have yet had a fuel related accident; you are paying in the £100s for a ticket to New York.
Yes, we do have the occasional fuel incident, which we work together to resolve and yes, we do need to understand why they occur, but wouldn't you say that on balance the professionals up front are getting it about right?
Professional aircrew:
Going back to a point made earlier about the impact on other operators when one aircraft has a fuel problem: It is worth remembering that we now have procedures for sterilising runways where a go-around would exacerbate a problem - Pan due fuel comes into that category. It basically means 15nm ahead of you rather than the extra mile or so that we have historically given you. 15 miles is 5 medium sized movements.
.4
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coracle...
As a TMA ATCO, if a pilot told me he/she was getting short of fuel my response would be "XXX are you declaring an emergency?".
If the answer was no, I would advise him/her what the holding situation was, and give them the full picture regarding what delay they could expect. This advice may be along the lines of "XXX delay is 15 to 20 mins, hold at XXX on reaching".
The pilot is a very well paid, highly skilled person. It is their decision to call an emergency or not. Being told early that they may be running short on fuel is what I would consider good manners and gives me a warning that the A/C may have to divert at some point. Yes, I will afford the A/C more attention; but other than that, no priority.
It is laid down in black and white what the procedures are and the correct ATC responses. Being told that "we are getting short on fuel" means nothing to an ATCO.... do you know what a pilot means by short on fuel?? It is an ambiguous statement considering it could mean short with regards to company gudelines or any other number of reasons. It's as unambiguous as "climb FLXXX, with a good rate through FLXXX"
If (and this is taking it to extremes but doing so for an example) a company policy was to land with 10T of fuel, why should that A/C be afforded any more priority (and thereby penalising others) than any other A/C in the stack if it does not call an emergency and is merely trying to stay within company (and not safety) guidelines??
If you need to land with priority, you call an emergency. Be it for safety reasons or to remain within company guidelines. You then fill in the paperwork and the reason becomes public domain. This way, other people will maybe learn something or have a memory jogged, thus preventing a nasty incident sometime in the future.
That is why the UK, unlike so many other countries has such a good, open reporting system and is one of the safest places to fly. Pilots and ATCOS are encouraged to report, it educates others.
As a TMA ATCO, if a pilot told me he/she was getting short of fuel my response would be "XXX are you declaring an emergency?".
If the answer was no, I would advise him/her what the holding situation was, and give them the full picture regarding what delay they could expect. This advice may be along the lines of "XXX delay is 15 to 20 mins, hold at XXX on reaching".
The pilot is a very well paid, highly skilled person. It is their decision to call an emergency or not. Being told early that they may be running short on fuel is what I would consider good manners and gives me a warning that the A/C may have to divert at some point. Yes, I will afford the A/C more attention; but other than that, no priority.
It is laid down in black and white what the procedures are and the correct ATC responses. Being told that "we are getting short on fuel" means nothing to an ATCO.... do you know what a pilot means by short on fuel?? It is an ambiguous statement considering it could mean short with regards to company gudelines or any other number of reasons. It's as unambiguous as "climb FLXXX, with a good rate through FLXXX"
If (and this is taking it to extremes but doing so for an example) a company policy was to land with 10T of fuel, why should that A/C be afforded any more priority (and thereby penalising others) than any other A/C in the stack if it does not call an emergency and is merely trying to stay within company (and not safety) guidelines??
If you need to land with priority, you call an emergency. Be it for safety reasons or to remain within company guidelines. You then fill in the paperwork and the reason becomes public domain. This way, other people will maybe learn something or have a memory jogged, thus preventing a nasty incident sometime in the future.
That is why the UK, unlike so many other countries has such a good, open reporting system and is one of the safest places to fly. Pilots and ATCOS are encouraged to report, it educates others.
I do like the references to pop into the likes of cardiff,chuck on a few tons of fuel and away you go.It doesnt work! Land and you are stuffed,nothing happens until at least 8am.I know, l have done it,pax home by bus etc.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and your point is?
As so many people have said before, NO DELAY is up to 20 mins holding. Period. Full stop.
If you can't manage that, then you are into the various options described at length. Your decision, your call.
As soon as you know you're going to land with less than the required minimum, then it's got to be a MAYDAY.
Inconvenience, paperwork, tea and no biccies, it don't matter.
Quite simple really.
As so many people have said before, NO DELAY is up to 20 mins holding. Period. Full stop.
If you can't manage that, then you are into the various options described at length. Your decision, your call.
As soon as you know you're going to land with less than the required minimum, then it's got to be a MAYDAY.
Inconvenience, paperwork, tea and no biccies, it don't matter.
Quite simple really.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Late developer,
I would like to apologise on behalf of just a few of my "professional" colleagues who are so arrogant as to think a passenger's views are worthless. It doesn't matter what the truth is (and to your credit you are pretty near it), it's your perception as a customer that matters.
Fact: The beancounters want us to carry less fuel, even in poor weather. You as a passenger don't like it and would prefer an airline that carries more.
If we carry more fuel you might have to pay a bit more for your ticket, that's the only apparent consequence. Unfortunately the eventual actual consequence is that the responsible airline goes bust through being uncompetitive and the disreputable airline just carries on with min fuel - except you no longer have a choice.
I would like to apologise on behalf of just a few of my "professional" colleagues who are so arrogant as to think a passenger's views are worthless. It doesn't matter what the truth is (and to your credit you are pretty near it), it's your perception as a customer that matters.
Fact: The beancounters want us to carry less fuel, even in poor weather. You as a passenger don't like it and would prefer an airline that carries more.
If we carry more fuel you might have to pay a bit more for your ticket, that's the only apparent consequence. Unfortunately the eventual actual consequence is that the responsible airline goes bust through being uncompetitive and the disreputable airline just carries on with min fuel - except you no longer have a choice.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I-FORD
Whilst on the face of it what you say has some merit, how do we in ATC deal with the fact that, with the advent of low cost operators having a major market share, almost every aircraft is probably in the postion of being able to declare 'minimum fuel advisory' ? Which puts us back to square 1.
Once one pilot uses it and jumps the queue (for that is what will happen), then everyone will work it out and use the same ruse. No emergency declared, no paperwork and no justification required to be given to anyone afterwards, and a chance to get ahead of everyone else. It's a winner !!
It is for precisely those reasons that the UK did away with non emergency fuel priorities, simply because too many operators were sailing too close to the wind and pulling the 'we'll have to divert if we can't be number 1' card. If you genuinely can't hold, or can only hold for a maximum number of minutes, then tell us. Call a PAN if you're not critical yet (but will possibly be if holding for a while), or a MAYDAY if things are getting desperate and you really need to get on the ground. Then the waves will part and you'll get the priority you deserve. The ATC system is geared up to deal with things which disrupt the efficient flows, it's part of our training, and second nature (mainly because our plans are changing tactically all the time anyway due to 1001 different things). You can learn the lessons once on the ground safely..... and worry about any 'inquest' then.
Since I practice my black arts in both an en route and terminal environment, I have experience in most phases of flight.
In the en route arena, I'd say you can advise that you might be tight without going to the PAN or MAYDAY route, since it may be possible to give you a more efficient flight profile (level or speed) which does not involve any queue jumping in any form. Doing that early may just give you a fuel saving which is the difference you need. And the workload involved on the ATC side is likely to be minimal.
But once you get in to the terminal area, it's probably too late to do anything worthwhile unless you are looking for us to give you priority. Sequences will be set up, holds will have traffic feeding in to them in an ordered manner, speed restrictions will be in force, level restrictions will be required. All things which might cause you delay and increased fuel burn. ATC (at least in the UK) is 'first come-first served'. It's the method which gives us the easiest life
and it's also the fairest. Of course we'll put that to one side if someone is in need and has a situation which necessitates the quickest approach possible. But you'll need to have legitimate reasons and make the appropriate status call to do so. It leaves no one in any doubt about the situation, both on the ground and in the air.
Blurring things with talk about 'fuel minimums' to ATC can introduce confusion and uncertainty. Different operators have different definitions, different aviation authorities have different requirements, none of which the ATCO has any knowledge of, so how can we be expected to decide upon the ramifications and the actual need for priority ? It's the commanders decision and theirs alone to decide whether their aircraft can be operated safely, or if risk margins are being reduced such that they need the help of us on the ground to help resolve it. The recognised way to get that help is to make the call - PAN or MAYDAY.
Whilst on the face of it what you say has some merit, how do we in ATC deal with the fact that, with the advent of low cost operators having a major market share, almost every aircraft is probably in the postion of being able to declare 'minimum fuel advisory' ? Which puts us back to square 1.
Once one pilot uses it and jumps the queue (for that is what will happen), then everyone will work it out and use the same ruse. No emergency declared, no paperwork and no justification required to be given to anyone afterwards, and a chance to get ahead of everyone else. It's a winner !!
It is for precisely those reasons that the UK did away with non emergency fuel priorities, simply because too many operators were sailing too close to the wind and pulling the 'we'll have to divert if we can't be number 1' card. If you genuinely can't hold, or can only hold for a maximum number of minutes, then tell us. Call a PAN if you're not critical yet (but will possibly be if holding for a while), or a MAYDAY if things are getting desperate and you really need to get on the ground. Then the waves will part and you'll get the priority you deserve. The ATC system is geared up to deal with things which disrupt the efficient flows, it's part of our training, and second nature (mainly because our plans are changing tactically all the time anyway due to 1001 different things). You can learn the lessons once on the ground safely..... and worry about any 'inquest' then.
Since I practice my black arts in both an en route and terminal environment, I have experience in most phases of flight.
In the en route arena, I'd say you can advise that you might be tight without going to the PAN or MAYDAY route, since it may be possible to give you a more efficient flight profile (level or speed) which does not involve any queue jumping in any form. Doing that early may just give you a fuel saving which is the difference you need. And the workload involved on the ATC side is likely to be minimal.
But once you get in to the terminal area, it's probably too late to do anything worthwhile unless you are looking for us to give you priority. Sequences will be set up, holds will have traffic feeding in to them in an ordered manner, speed restrictions will be in force, level restrictions will be required. All things which might cause you delay and increased fuel burn. ATC (at least in the UK) is 'first come-first served'. It's the method which gives us the easiest life
and it's also the fairest. Of course we'll put that to one side if someone is in need and has a situation which necessitates the quickest approach possible. But you'll need to have legitimate reasons and make the appropriate status call to do so. It leaves no one in any doubt about the situation, both on the ground and in the air. Blurring things with talk about 'fuel minimums' to ATC can introduce confusion and uncertainty. Different operators have different definitions, different aviation authorities have different requirements, none of which the ATCO has any knowledge of, so how can we be expected to decide upon the ramifications and the actual need for priority ? It's the commanders decision and theirs alone to decide whether their aircraft can be operated safely, or if risk margins are being reduced such that they need the help of us on the ground to help resolve it. The recognised way to get that help is to make the call - PAN or MAYDAY.