Virgin 'low fuel' MAYDAY

[Cobbler]

Heard an interesting one inbound to LGW this morning (0700Z)... Virgin 747 told to expect 10 mins holding at WILLO. Replied that he didn't have any holding fuel.

ATC asked "Do you want to divert or declare an emergency?"
VS: "Well, we could go to LHR but they won't want us."
ATC: "I need a decision by the time you pass Goodwood."
VS: "in that case... we'll declare a MAYDAY."

VS then continued to Gatwick.

Now it seemed to us that the guy was cheating - he had the fuel to divert and so should have done. The fact that his alternate may not want him is niether here nor there - that's the risk you have when carrying LHR as an alternate for LGW. Perhaps, if Heathrow had 20 mins holding, that would put it beyong his endurance, but ATC made no mention of LHR delays. (And can a 747 land, and take off again, at Bournemouth? If so, that should have been an option)

And SOP in our company is that this situation - MAY land was less than reserves - is a PAN. Is this universal? A MAYDAY seemed a little extreme.

Any thoughts?

<I presume he hadn't already committed to LGW, as he stated he had the fuel to reach LHR.>

[Hand Solo]

We don't know exactly what their fuel state was so we can't comment on their choice of emergency pro-phrase but if they had insufficient fuel to hold at LGW then chances are by the time they were vectored round to LHR they'd probably be close to at least a PAN call anyway. No doubt the CAA will be taking a look.

[Daysleeper]

Is there not a procedure in the UK for declaring minimum fuel, as opposed to fuel emergency? If one had used the expression "minimum fuel" a few frequencies back,

Due to the tortueous nature of the internet I cant put my hand on the Pink (safety) AIC that covers this but to surmise the UK do NOT recognise phrases such as "minimum fuel" "fuel priority" or similar. You either have enough fuel or you declare an emergency.

The theory behind this (AFAIR) is that in a cut throat business we are all carrying minimum fuel anyhow and if one operator thought that it could load a few kilos less and then cry priority every time it came in it would gain an unfair commercial advantage. Whereas "Pan" and "mayday" will trigger a formal investigation and a paper trail allowing the CAA to track these problems.

[blackmail]

va fuel mayday

hello cobbler,
i don't want to speculate on "cheating" on your fuel status in flight, because, if you do, you are breaking/bending the rules, which is not good of course.

but lets talk about fuel management in flight, which is different from fuel planning in the briefing room.
taken your example with a fuel decision over goodwood:case 1) overflying this point you must have as minimum fuel on board:-approach fuel from goodwood to missed approach+chosen alternate fuel(long range cruise) + final reserve(30min at 1500ft agl). i think the va flight was in this situation, because the pilot( supposedly honest), told atc , he didn't have the 10min extra hold fuel over goodwood & it was either divert to lhr or to proceed for a landing in lgw.
now case 2) regulation & some cie sops allow the pilot to convert/burn his alternate fuel in holding over destination(here goodwood), IF the pilot decides it is safer to hold than to divert considering weather factors, expected approach time etc. the flight is then committed to landing in lgw & atc is informed e.g." gatwick radar, yes, we can accept 10min holding but are now committed to lgw, max holding time = ... min(time to burn your alternate fuel at holding speed). for info, here we are still in a normal fuel scenario
case 3) holding over goodwood( >10min & at a time where almost all of your alternate fuel is consumed & still no approach clearance)) you are " approaching" your absolute minimorum fuel status: approach fuel + final reserve(30min). you then call atc: " lgw, approaching minimum fuel, request priority landig". for info, this is still no pan or mayday call, because, if you get now your approach clearance, the regs only ask you to touch down with 30mins in the tanks. that some sweathing is going on in the cockpit at this time looks more than probable.
case 4) from bad to worse: still no approach clearance & you see that you are passing the point where you have on board less than approach & 30min fuel. you now enter the world of a full blown low fuel emergency situation. to atc " lgw, va..., mayday 3x,fuel emergency, ... pobs, 25min fuel endurance left, request immediate vectors for landing". if totally unlikely, by then you still have no clearance, you just dive for the runway & land, using your emergency authority:" inflight captain is last authorithy etc... & may deviate from all rules & clearances in the interest of safety".

i agree, this is a worst case scenario & used to explain the different aspects of it, but still 100% legal, but i admit nerve wrecking.

[BOAC]

A 'common' UK SOP is, as 'Cobbler' says, to declare a 'PAN' if you MAY land with less than reserves. A MAYDAY is commonly reserved for you WILL land with less than reserves.

The CAA 'Pink' that 'Daysleeper' refers to does advise ALL aircraft inbound to LHR/LGW and STN to have AT LEAST 20 minutes holding fuel. At 0700Z I would certainly try very hard to have at least that.

The issue of nominating LHR as a LGW alternate was one we fought with in BA shorthaul having also been told we were not expected to go there for real.....................

Edit for Blackmail - Case 2 is not normal procedure in the UK. Telling ATC you are committed to LGW will do nothing (in theory). There is a chance the runway can be blocked by an evacuation or tyre burst. Case 3 is not applicable in the UK - in both cases, in the UK, it is Pan or Mayday or just get on with it.

[Fly747]

They also declared a "fuel emergency" at DXB about 10 days ago.

DXB gets worse as it gets busier, still only one runway, lots of slowing down, long vectors, flaps out, gas get guzzled quick, vis can go quickly, accident waiting?

[Daysleeper]

Found the AIC http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4P058.PDF

you may need to register for free to view.

The salient points are.

8 Pilots should be aware that although every effort will be made to expidite their arrival, a call such as "Fuel Emergency" has no status in the UK and ATC cannot give priority to an aircraft with a shortage of fuel unless an emergency is declared

9 A radio call prefixed by MAYDAY for distress or PAN for urgency will ensure priority habdling but the aeroplanes actuial fuel state should reflect the seriousness of the emergency call. A commander should only make such a call when he belives the aircraft to be in danger, not because the fuel state has fallen below the ammount needed to comply with formula given above.

Well I was trying to copy and paste but in their infinite wisdom the flipping AIC (a published public doc) is password protected. Muppetts. Apologies for spelling errors in my re-typing.

[120.4]

At 07:00 (L) this morning Heathrow had 10 minutes holding delay. In the interests of least overall disruption to the system we occasionally "adjust" the landing order (for all airlines) where one or two places will make the difference but a 10 minute jump of the queue is out of the question without declaring Pan.


In view of 'Daysleeper's' "pink" regarding 20 minutes for LL/KK, I believe he should have advised ATC as soon as he knew he wouldn't have that on arrival (which was probably quite a long way back).
Point 4

[Re-entry]

Anytime it becomes apparent the A/C will land with less than reserve fuel, an emergency must be declared.
As far as ATC are concerned you either have an emergency or you don't.
If you do, you will get priority.
And you will have some paperwork to do.

[stiffwing]

It seems evident that the VS aircraft was long-haul.
Perhaps an earlier decision to divert to an enroute airport would have saved a lot of drama. Or maybe this was the scenario " I'm longhaul, give me priority, or else" ????
Basically, not being able to handle 10 mins holding is pretty desperate and should have been sorted prior to the Terminal area, IMHO.

[PPRuNe Radar]

On a famil trip with Virgin returning to LHR from JNB, we had been kept low almost the whole length of Africa due to traffic and the rudimentary ATC system which was in place (not a criticism, just a fact). The skipper was constantly assessing the fuel situation and coming over Europe it looked like we would make it with enough in reserve. However, the crew were also monitoring the LHR weather and in touch with Virgin Ops who were reporting 20+ minutes holding due to Low Vis Procedures (FG at LHR).

So we diverted in to Paris Orly for fuel ... then picked up 3 hours on the ground waiting for a slot back in to LHR.

The point of the tale ?? The long haul crew on my flight made all the right calls and didn't press on or push the limits, even although it would cause them and their passengers some inconvenience. Presumably the crew in this thread also made their decisions based on the information available to them, which none of us have at our fingertips right now.

[LYKA]

Must carry 20 mins extra fuel

BOAC - Just to add to the debate (or fuel ( ) to the fire!

The AIC (which is advisory, and not regulatory in nature) doesn't quite say that. It states that on receipt of an ATC advisory MSG "expect no delay" one can expect to spend 20 mins in the hold, it doesn't state you must carry 20 mins extra fuel into these airports.

Lyka

[jondc9]

I am just curious why the UK doesn't have "minimum fuel" as part of their lexicon?

We have that in the US...granted you still might have to divert or really declare an emergency later on.


It is sad to me that planes that can carry more fuel, don't. We all know why and I understand the concepts of tankering fuel or whatever expression you would like to use.

I do know that taking more fuel does cost a company more money, but what of the ORLY diversion? That must have cost even more. (though I applaud the pilot of said flight, short of taking an extra hour of fuel, he did the right thing)


In some ways I wish the entire world had re-regulated the airline industry...the cost of the ticket would provide a reasonable profit to the company and no shortchanging pilots or other workers on pensions. It would also allow a normal pilot to say, "I think we will take another hour of fuel just to be sure", without having to explain this to a bean counter or a chief pilot.

[overstress]

Originally Posted by LYKA

BOAC - Just to add to the debate (or fuel ( ) to the fire!
The AIC (which is advisory, and not regulatory in nature) doesn't quite say that. It states that on receipt of an ATC advisory MSG "expect no delay" one can expect to spend 20 mins in the hold, it doesn't state you must carry 20 mins extra fuel into these airports.
Lyka

This enables a never-ending battle amongst colleagues, some of whom are dyed-in-the wool company men!

If 20 mins holding is to be expected at any time, shouldn't it be accounted for in the flight plan trip fuel?

In BA 'statistical contingency' is routinely used.

[BOAC]

LYKA - this thread is going the way of its previous 7 or 8 re-incarnations, and I'm sure a thorough search will locate them all.

One can indeed play semantics with this, and management in some airlines are particularly skilled at this.

To me, and most of my colleagues who have been operating into the London TMA for a few years, the AIC 'advises' that you really SHOULD carry AT LEAST 20 mins holding fuel during 'rush hour'. It is not realistic to read it any other way. In fact I believe in one of the previous fuel threads it was said that the original 'Pink' did in fact have those very words, but certain airlines 'requested' a change in the wording to its current form.

The CAA SOC on Fuel Policies of 2000 highlighted this and said "it has again become apparent that too many aeroplanes continued to arrive in the vicinity of their planned destination with little more than Alternate and Final Reserve fuel remaining."

It is also not generally known that the same SOC advised that Captains should adjust TRIP FUEL to include expected holding fuel. The BA system still does not do that, but allows, as 'Overstress' posts, increased 'contingency fuel' at peak times.

I'm fairly sure we all really know what it all means, despite pussy-footing around with words. Anyone who can but does NOT plan for such, and arrives short, has only themselves to blame. As PPR, however, I am NOT leaping to any judgement about this particular event as we do not (and probably never will) know the facts.

[411A]

How long 'til the smokin' hole...?

>>In view of 'Daysleeper's' "pink" regarding 20 minutes for LL/KK, I believe he should have advised ATC as soon as he knew he wouldn't have that on arrival (which was probably quite a long way back).<<

Spot on, point 4, and then, if required, divert as necessary, just as the referenced JNB flight a few posts later.

It never ceases to amaze me the propensity of some flights to steam around with absolute minimum fuel, oftentimes finding themselves unable to hold, where holding is expected on a regular basis.
Further, the 20 minute hold fuel requirement for LHR (and LGW) has been in existance now for, what is it...nearly 14 years?

A CAA investigation is surely required.
Or, will it be the usual...smooth over and forgotten?

[FullWings]

Before we lynch the Virgin pilots, maybe we should examine some of the circumstances...

They (VA) filed a flightplan to LGW with LHR as an alternate. This was accepted by ATC.

The uncertainties of life conspired to leave them with just over RES+ALT approaching the holding fix at destination. Their nominated alternate decided it was too busy to accomodate them and there was a 10min+ delay at destination (not advised previously).

They declared an emergency and landed at destination.

At what point were they non-compliant with JAR-OPS?

In my Company, we would have probably been on a 'PAN' at that stage but I don't know Virgin SOPs for low fuel state - not really central to the argument, anyway.

Yes, we've all (I hope) read the AIC about holding into London but at the end of the day it's only ADVICE (good advice, I know). There is no specific prohibition on arriving at LAM, OCK, WILLO, etc. with <20mins holding fuel.

Where is the AIC forbidding the use of LHR as an alt. for LGW and vice-versa? Maybe there should be one...

[Loose rivets]

It never ceases to amaze me the propensity of some flights to steam around with absolute minimum fuel, oftentimes finding themselves unable to hold,

And of course the day will come where say, three or more aircraft are all in the same position.


Randomness comes in lumps.

[woodpecker]

FullWings

Their nominated alternate decided it was too busy to accomodate them

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by this statement.
Are you suggesting it was ATC or their company at their nominated alternate that was too busy?

[chiglet]

FullWings
MAN landing 24R, a "LEGAL" alternate is 24L.....the DEPARTURE runway . Yes we still get these idiosyncrasys[sp]
watp,iktch