MINIMUM FUEL
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 243
Likes: 1
From: Milkway Galaxy
MINIMUM FUEL
Hello folks,
I kindly request your view about following scenario:
Estimated landing fuel is 5000 kg. Alternate fuel is 1500 kg and Final Reserve Fuel is 2500 kg, so Minimum Diversion Fuel is 4000kg. After descent, I have contacted to Approach control and ATC instructed me to hold 16 minutes due traffic congestion. At this moment Fuel on Board was 5500 kg. This 16 minutes hold (4 full hold pattern) will burn 1600 kg. From holding pattern to landing 500kg. So if I accept this holding, I will depart holding pattern with 3900 kg and land with 3400 kg . Obviously I should give up from diverting plan. Weather is good, there are 2 runways etc. so I dare to this and I decided Committed to Land and entered to hold. Obviously ATC have no idea about my fuel endurance time and my intention.
“EASA AIR OPS Extract:
CAT.OP.MPA.185 Fuel/energy scheme – in-flight fuel/energy management policy – aeroplanes
(c) The commander shall advise air traffic control (ATC) of a ‘minimum fuel/energy’ state by declaring ‘MINIMUM FUEL’ when the commander has:
(1) committed to land at a specific aerodrome; and
(2) calculated that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than the planned final reserve fuel/energy.”
So, according to your interpretation of above extracts, can you answer the question below:
If required, when MINIMUM FUEL must be declared ?
I kindly request your view about following scenario:
Estimated landing fuel is 5000 kg. Alternate fuel is 1500 kg and Final Reserve Fuel is 2500 kg, so Minimum Diversion Fuel is 4000kg. After descent, I have contacted to Approach control and ATC instructed me to hold 16 minutes due traffic congestion. At this moment Fuel on Board was 5500 kg. This 16 minutes hold (4 full hold pattern) will burn 1600 kg. From holding pattern to landing 500kg. So if I accept this holding, I will depart holding pattern with 3900 kg and land with 3400 kg . Obviously I should give up from diverting plan. Weather is good, there are 2 runways etc. so I dare to this and I decided Committed to Land and entered to hold. Obviously ATC have no idea about my fuel endurance time and my intention.
“EASA AIR OPS Extract:
CAT.OP.MPA.185 Fuel/energy scheme – in-flight fuel/energy management policy – aeroplanes
(c) The commander shall advise air traffic control (ATC) of a ‘minimum fuel/energy’ state by declaring ‘MINIMUM FUEL’ when the commander has:
(1) committed to land at a specific aerodrome; and
(2) calculated that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than the planned final reserve fuel/energy.”
So, according to your interpretation of above extracts, can you answer the question below:
If required, when MINIMUM FUEL must be declared ?
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,319
Likes: 100
From: IRS NAV ONLY
It's a judgement call, really. Key part is:
If you're going to land with 900kg above final reserve, and you're burning 400kg per full holding pattern, you could still accept 2 more holdings (in addition to what you have already been advised of), before you'd be down to final reserve, so you're probably not at the point of the minimum fuel call yet.
any change to the existing clearance
Joined: Dec 2005
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,974
Likes: 326
From: Hong Kong
The clearance (hold for 16 minutes) has you landing above FR so no call - yet. After 16 minutes you should get a further clearance. You already know you have 9 minutes / 2 holds left.
If the clearance is 1 hold - no call.
If the clearance is 2 holds - "minimum fuel".
If the clearance is 3 or more holds I'd tell them we ARE flying 2 holds with minimum fuel. In all scenarios if you're not exiting the hold after 2 then it's "Mayday"
If the clearance is 1 hold - no call.
If the clearance is 2 holds - "minimum fuel".
If the clearance is 3 or more holds I'd tell them we ARE flying 2 holds with minimum fuel. In all scenarios if you're not exiting the hold after 2 then it's "Mayday"
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 243
Likes: 1
From: Milkway Galaxy
Thanks
Rudestone
What do you mean with “1 hold” ?
Is it extra hold after 4th full hold?
Rudestone
If the clearance is 1 hold - no call.
If the clearance is 2 holds - "minimum fuel".
If the clearance is 3 or more holds I'd tell them we ARE flying 2 holds with minimum fuel. In all scenarios if you're not exiting the hold after 2 then it's "Mayday"
If the clearance is 2 holds - "minimum fuel".
If the clearance is 3 or more holds I'd tell them we ARE flying 2 holds with minimum fuel. In all scenarios if you're not exiting the hold after 2 then it's "Mayday"
What do you mean with “1 hold” ?
Is it extra hold after 4th full hold?
Joined: Apr 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,649
Likes: 491
From: Europe
In the old situation we called PAN if there was a possibility given the circumstances that we would land below Final Reserve. Now we give ATC a bit more of a heads up. Less surprise for the controller, a bit more ambiguity for the pilots. I guess that’s why this question is asked?
So yes, in the above ideal example I would call ‘minimum fuel’ if the hold was further extended as written by rudestyff. In the real world that call might come sooner. Weather, airspace complexity, predictability, controller attitude all come into play.
On the other hand, in AMS on a calm sunny day with the controllers on top of their game and all the traffic nicely lined up on my TCAS display, that call might come a bit later, if at all.
So yes, in the above ideal example I would call ‘minimum fuel’ if the hold was further extended as written by rudestyff. In the real world that call might come sooner. Weather, airspace complexity, predictability, controller attitude all come into play.
On the other hand, in AMS on a calm sunny day with the controllers on top of their game and all the traffic nicely lined up on my TCAS display, that call might come a bit later, if at all.
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 540
Likes: 336
From: Blue sky
EASA :
‘MINIMUM FUEL’ DECLARATION
(d) The ‘MINIMUM FUEL’ declaration informs the ATC that all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aerodrome of intended landing. It also informs the ATC that any change to the existing clearance may result in landing with less than the planned FRF. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible, should any additional delay occur.
... When the remaining fuel no longer allows a diversion from the holding pattern, then the flight crew should declare "minimum fuel"...
‘MINIMUM FUEL’ DECLARATION
(d) The ‘MINIMUM FUEL’ declaration informs the ATC that all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aerodrome of intended landing. It also informs the ATC that any change to the existing clearance may result in landing with less than the planned FRF. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible, should any additional delay occur.
... When the remaining fuel no longer allows a diversion from the holding pattern, then the flight crew should declare "minimum fuel"...
Last edited by BraceBrace; 28th January 2026 at 16:05.
Joined: Dec 2005
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,974
Likes: 326
From: Hong Kong
In your example you're told to expect 2 holds which makes it easier (if you were flying around on vectors it would be trickier).
You have 9 minutes to play with so it's not yet minimum fuel. If you are then given a further (3rd) hold you will now have only 5 minutes to play with - still not minimum fuel because you *could* fly a 4th. But if the clearance is for an additional 2 holds (no 3 and no 4) now you have 1 minute left. Not enough for another (5th) hold so as soon as you recieve that clearance it's a minimum fuel call.
You're basically telling them thanks for the 2 holds, I'll give you two more but that's the limit. If you don't clear me for the approach after the 4th hold then the next thing you'll hear is Mayday and I'll clear myself for the approach.
You have 9 minutes to play with so it's not yet minimum fuel. If you are then given a further (3rd) hold you will now have only 5 minutes to play with - still not minimum fuel because you *could* fly a 4th. But if the clearance is for an additional 2 holds (no 3 and no 4) now you have 1 minute left. Not enough for another (5th) hold so as soon as you recieve that clearance it's a minimum fuel call.
You're basically telling them thanks for the 2 holds, I'll give you two more but that's the limit. If you don't clear me for the approach after the 4th hold then the next thing you'll hear is Mayday and I'll clear myself for the approach.
Joined: Apr 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,649
Likes: 491
From: Europe
EASA :
‘MINIMUM FUEL’ DECLARATION
(d) The ‘MINIMUM FUEL’ declaration informs the ATC that all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aerodrome of intended landing. It also informs the ATC that any change to the existing clearance may result in landing with less than the planned FRF. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible, should any additional delay occur.
... When the remaining fuel no longer allows a diversion from the holding pattern, then the flight crew should declare "minimum fuel"...
‘MINIMUM FUEL’ DECLARATION
(d) The ‘MINIMUM FUEL’ declaration informs the ATC that all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aerodrome of intended landing. It also informs the ATC that any change to the existing clearance may result in landing with less than the planned FRF. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible, should any additional delay occur.
... When the remaining fuel no longer allows a diversion from the holding pattern, then the flight crew should declare "minimum fuel"...
'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, [and] the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel'
Hence I think it's too simple to say 'once committed, call minimum fuel'.
Joined: Dec 2020
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 179
Likes: 79
From: Amsterdam
How I see it is this:
Close to Fin Res: advise ATC to give them a heads up but it isn't necessary. I always communicate with ATC as early as possible so they can either coordinate or you can start thinking about a plan. It's always best to be the first to divert before the others start to divert and your alternates start closing off due to traffic/ramp congestion.
Landing with Fin Res: inform ATC, "minimum fuel"
Landing below Final Res: "MAYDAY FUEL"
Close to Fin Res: advise ATC to give them a heads up but it isn't necessary. I always communicate with ATC as early as possible so they can either coordinate or you can start thinking about a plan. It's always best to be the first to divert before the others start to divert and your alternates start closing off due to traffic/ramp congestion.
Landing with Fin Res: inform ATC, "minimum fuel"
Landing below Final Res: "MAYDAY FUEL"
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 243
Likes: 1
From: Milkway Galaxy
Rudestuff
In my example I didn’t say “I am told to expect 2 holds or mentioned time or vectoring” Question is simple but answers may be controversial
Let me go to little bit more details: I entered hold with 5500 kg. To be able to divert I should leave holding with 4500 kg. For a Committed to Land decision, leaving hold with this 4500 kg has no more importance. But yet, ATC has no idea what I am thinking. After 2 holds remaining fuel 4700 kg. Although I entered holding with an intention Committed to land, at this moment diversion is still an option. I am entering 3rd hold but looks no good amended news from ATC. By the way, I have started to see 4400 kg on board while in 3rd holding. Now my Committed to Land intention solidified and diversion option is completely dismissed.
I consider at this point I should declare MINIMUM FUEL for awareness of ATC, now they know my status for their further planning. I believe this will be much better for them as well, rather than hearing an unexpected MAYDAY from a silent pilot.
If I did not misunderstand, only BraceBrace and PENKO considers like me.
I had a long chat with GEMINI AI diving in details. And I find its interpretation of EASA CAT.OP.MPA.185 Fuel/energy scheme very realistic, as advising to be proactive rather than reactive.
A part of chat with AI
If it is allowed I can paste all chat text here.
In your example you're told to expect 2 holds which makes it easier (if you were flying around on vectors it would be trickier).
You have 9 minutes to play with so it's not yet minimum fuel. If you are then given a further (3rd) hold you will now have only 5 minutes to play with - still not minimum fuel because you *could* fly a 4th. But if the clearance is for an additional 2 holds (no 3 and no 4) now you have 1 minute left. Not enough for another (5th) hold so as soon as you recieve that clearance it's a minimum fuel call.
You have 9 minutes to play with so it's not yet minimum fuel. If you are then given a further (3rd) hold you will now have only 5 minutes to play with - still not minimum fuel because you *could* fly a 4th. But if the clearance is for an additional 2 holds (no 3 and no 4) now you have 1 minute left. Not enough for another (5th) hold so as soon as you recieve that clearance it's a minimum fuel call.
In my example I didn’t say “I am told to expect 2 holds or mentioned time or vectoring” Question is simple but answers may be controversial
Let me go to little bit more details: I entered hold with 5500 kg. To be able to divert I should leave holding with 4500 kg. For a Committed to Land decision, leaving hold with this 4500 kg has no more importance. But yet, ATC has no idea what I am thinking. After 2 holds remaining fuel 4700 kg. Although I entered holding with an intention Committed to land, at this moment diversion is still an option. I am entering 3rd hold but looks no good amended news from ATC. By the way, I have started to see 4400 kg on board while in 3rd holding. Now my Committed to Land intention solidified and diversion option is completely dismissed.
I consider at this point I should declare MINIMUM FUEL for awareness of ATC, now they know my status for their further planning. I believe this will be much better for them as well, rather than hearing an unexpected MAYDAY from a silent pilot.
If I did not misunderstand, only BraceBrace and PENKO considers like me.
I had a long chat with GEMINI AI diving in details. And I find its interpretation of EASA CAT.OP.MPA.185 Fuel/energy scheme very realistic, as advising to be proactive rather than reactive.
A part of chat with AI
If you declare it early and things go south, you followed the scheme. If you stay silent and end up landing with 2400 kg (even 100 kg under FRF), the investigation will ask: "Why didn't you inform ATC when you committed to the destination?" It's always better to explain a "Minimum Fuel" call to the Chief Pilot than to explain a "Final Reserve" infringement to the Civil Aviation Authority.
Joined: Apr 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,649
Likes: 491
From: Europe
Maybe it’s time for an official ‘committed’ call. That would cover the quoted legalistic scenario of having to explain a low fuel landing to the chief pilot. But that’s not how I interpret the ‘Minimum Fuel’ call as I tried to explain above.
If you look back in recent history, we went from the straight forward PAN/MAYDAY fuel procedure to the more wishy washy Minimum Fuel/MAYDAY.
I understand the reasoning, i.e. why wait till the last moment to surprise ATC with a PAN call when reserves are getting uncomfortably low if you’ve known long before that your options were limited. But now we have ended up with a ‘Minimum Fuel’ call, which depending on interpretation, could mean anything between an hour of extra holding time to landing with final reserve in the tanks. I’d propose a ‘committed’ call, followed by ‘minimum fuel’ and ‘mayday’, as required.
If you look back in recent history, we went from the straight forward PAN/MAYDAY fuel procedure to the more wishy washy Minimum Fuel/MAYDAY.
I understand the reasoning, i.e. why wait till the last moment to surprise ATC with a PAN call when reserves are getting uncomfortably low if you’ve known long before that your options were limited. But now we have ended up with a ‘Minimum Fuel’ call, which depending on interpretation, could mean anything between an hour of extra holding time to landing with final reserve in the tanks. I’d propose a ‘committed’ call, followed by ‘minimum fuel’ and ‘mayday’, as required.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 336
Likes: 15
From: Dubai
In your example, you should declare minimum fuel as soon as you commit. I might also point out that a full hold does not take 4 minutes but rather 5.5 - 6 minutes, so you have 3 holds. It appears that you will have about 9 minutes of fuel to spare and that means if they give you even 1 more hold you might infringe your minimum reserve.
It helps to look at various scanarios. Instead of numbers, let's look at time. Let's say you check in with approach and they hand you an EAT of 16h00 and this requires you to commit. You work out that whilst you have to commit, you must leave the hold by 17h00 in order to land with FR intact. In this case I am not worried about minumum fuel. If. however, I was handed an EAT of 16h55, I would be worried. If my EAT was 16h50, I would still be worried, but a little less worried. If my EAT was 16h45 again I would be concerned by probably not overly so. The question we have to aski ourselves, is at what point do you go from being "concerned" to actually doing something about it - in a modern environment with good ATC that I know, I would probably be happy with a 10 minute margin. Unfamiliar turf(or 3rd world) and that margin might go up to 15 or 20 minutes. Not everyone will agree with where this margin sits and it is up to you to think about where your limits lie. Once you have an EAT and you have calculated the margin falls below your comfort level ie you have "calculated that any change to your clearance might infringe your final reserve" then you may legally declare minumum fuel as soon as you commit.
The act of declaring minimum fuel does not require any action on behalf of the ATC but they will ensure that they stick to the EAT that they gave you. I might also point out that when they are trying to address what may be a messy radar screen, so they may move you around in the sequence and knowing that you don't have much fuel beyond your EAT is something they should be told sooner rather than later. I always say that when it comes to fuel, don't be a hero.
It helps to look at various scanarios. Instead of numbers, let's look at time. Let's say you check in with approach and they hand you an EAT of 16h00 and this requires you to commit. You work out that whilst you have to commit, you must leave the hold by 17h00 in order to land with FR intact. In this case I am not worried about minumum fuel. If. however, I was handed an EAT of 16h55, I would be worried. If my EAT was 16h50, I would still be worried, but a little less worried. If my EAT was 16h45 again I would be concerned by probably not overly so. The question we have to aski ourselves, is at what point do you go from being "concerned" to actually doing something about it - in a modern environment with good ATC that I know, I would probably be happy with a 10 minute margin. Unfamiliar turf(or 3rd world) and that margin might go up to 15 or 20 minutes. Not everyone will agree with where this margin sits and it is up to you to think about where your limits lie. Once you have an EAT and you have calculated the margin falls below your comfort level ie you have "calculated that any change to your clearance might infringe your final reserve" then you may legally declare minumum fuel as soon as you commit.
The act of declaring minimum fuel does not require any action on behalf of the ATC but they will ensure that they stick to the EAT that they gave you. I might also point out that when they are trying to address what may be a messy radar screen, so they may move you around in the sequence and knowing that you don't have much fuel beyond your EAT is something they should be told sooner rather than later. I always say that when it comes to fuel, don't be a hero.
Joined: Oct 2007
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 120
From: Wherever I go, there I am
How I see it is this:
Close to Fin Res: advise ATC to give them a heads up but it isn't necessary. I always communicate with ATC as early as possible so they can either coordinate or you can start thinking about a plan. It's always best to be the first to divert before the others start to divert and your alternates start closing off due to traffic/ramp congestion.
Landing with Fin Res: inform ATC, "minimum fuel"
Landing below Final Res: "MAYDAY FUEL"
Close to Fin Res: advise ATC to give them a heads up but it isn't necessary. I always communicate with ATC as early as possible so they can either coordinate or you can start thinking about a plan. It's always best to be the first to divert before the others start to divert and your alternates start closing off due to traffic/ramp congestion.
Landing with Fin Res: inform ATC, "minimum fuel"
Landing below Final Res: "MAYDAY FUEL"
I agree with Penko. The phrase "Minimum Fuel" is a little too "wishy-washy" for my likes. A PAN worked fine before as it is perfectly suited for a "urgent but non-life threatening situation." A PAN call certainly gets ATC's attention, and "minimum fuel" is meant to soften the language, but as a result I've heard ATC tell a pilot that they "only" declared minimum fuel, not MAYDAY fuel. It seemed like the phrase "minimum" didn't warrant the same response that PAN used to. I like to keep things simple, so I'd argue we go back to just using PAN and MAYDAY. Having extra steps is what I believe is causing the confusion and discussion in the first place.
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 540
Likes: 336
From: Blue sky
That last sentence causes a lot of confusion. It seems to imply that anytime you commit to an airport, a 'minimum fuel' declaration should be made, regardless of the fact that you still have plenty of fuel on board. ...
Hence I think it's too simple to say 'once committed, call minimum fuel'.
Hence I think it's too simple to say 'once committed, call minimum fuel'.
I'm used to using the EASA EAR for air ops (which is ICAO if I read your definition), inflight fuel management. The guidance for inflight fuel management is from a pilot leaflet (see link) that was copied in our OM back in the day, the "3 step approach". The difference between the two is that ICAO DOC 4444 does use the word "clearance", which is something that is not really addressed in EASA EAR. I think the confusion relates more to the word "commit". "Committing" to an airport doesn't really have any kind of value for ATC. We tend to think it has, but I can't find any reference. So I think this is a "perspective" discussion. The decision to "commit" from the pilot perspective is that he will not divert as destination gives him at least "equal safe option" to land.
In the 3 step approach the first step is to get delay information before deciding on any "commitment". In the example posted here, this results in the EFC information for the holding. If that EFC time forces you to take a decision on commitment, that information should be passed to ATC with a "minimum fuel" declaration. If you as a pilot rather decide to delay your decision to commit (which you have to right to as long as your fuel situation allows) by going for one turn in the hold to "wait and see", the "minimum fuel" declaration is also not a requirement. So it's totally up to you, and that's why that 3 step approach (and EASA regulations as well) clearly states that the declaration cannot be made unless you are already committed.
So it's totally up to you. On a personal note, delaying the message is just a "delay" to end up in the same situation. If you want to commit, you want to commit as landing at your destination is at least as safe - if not safer - than diverting....
Last edited by BraceBrace; 28th January 2026 at 20:24.
Joined: Sep 2008
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,426
Likes: 1,191
From: 41S174E
Jabbara…….you have 11 minutes fat before you are declaring a Mayday, being stood down, facing a safety investigation from your Airline, and most likely your Regulator as well. Just call ‘Minimum Fuel’ and carry on with your plan to safely get everyone on the ground. Nothing big will happen, nobody will get excited. The intent of the new calls ( better communication between aircraft and ATC) will have been met and then if ATC do have to give you more holding, or if you have a flap problem when configuring, or if the A380 that’s cleared to line up in front of you takes too long and you get sent around and you call Mayday, then you have met all of your obligations.
I agree that it’s all a bit wishy washy but it’s not a big deal when you are down to lower levels of fuel like that so just do it and the system will work.
I agree that it’s all a bit wishy washy but it’s not a big deal when you are down to lower levels of fuel like that so just do it and the system will work.
Joined: Apr 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,649
Likes: 491
From: Europe
I called minimum fuel for exactly that reason during my latest diversion. After holding for about twenty minutes due to thunderstorms at destination and alternate, we diverted to our secondary alternate with CAVOK weather. Forecast landing fuel was 12 minutes above final reserve. We called ‘minimum fuel’ and were met with utter indifference by the ATCO. She was like ‘yeah, good for you’ (not literally).
To be fair to her, I understand her reaction, what else was she going to say on a quiet Sunday afternoon? The only reason we called minimum fuel was both our unfamiliarity with the airport and arrival procedures and some left-over adrenaline from the crazy weather we just encountered previously. Had this been a textbook diversion to a familiar field I would probably not have called minimum fuel. Basic flight planning already assumes you have run out of options once you divert!
Don’t get me wrong. I understand the legalistic side of things, the perceived need to cover ones *ss just in case things go wrong. But also consider this: it is the same regulator and chief pilot who encourages us to take minimum fuel whenever conditions allow. They do this accepting that any diversion would have us landing with just minutes of fuel above Final Reserve. I am happy to play that game. In other words, cover your *ss when necessary but be sensible about it.
To be fair to her, I understand her reaction, what else was she going to say on a quiet Sunday afternoon? The only reason we called minimum fuel was both our unfamiliarity with the airport and arrival procedures and some left-over adrenaline from the crazy weather we just encountered previously. Had this been a textbook diversion to a familiar field I would probably not have called minimum fuel. Basic flight planning already assumes you have run out of options once you divert!
Don’t get me wrong. I understand the legalistic side of things, the perceived need to cover ones *ss just in case things go wrong. But also consider this: it is the same regulator and chief pilot who encourages us to take minimum fuel whenever conditions allow. They do this accepting that any diversion would have us landing with just minutes of fuel above Final Reserve. I am happy to play that game. In other words, cover your *ss when necessary but be sensible about it.
Joined: Jun 2025
Aviation Qualifications: ATCO
Posts: 111
Likes: 205
From: Karlsruhe
So after being prompted by Musician, I can give my (very much no longer current) view on this one from an ATC perspective. Keep in mind that I quit about 10 years ago, so I'm very much rusty and my phraseology was so disgustingly bad I actually had to consult the handbook XD
This might also explain the "indifference" you may perceive in your interaction. As crazy as it may sound to you, but we're actually trained to be dispassionate and somewhat "detached". When you get to your "desk" you are very much the person in charge of what is going to happen in the next few hours. You have ups and downs, periods of low intensity, and those with high intensity. For me as an ATCO that is not how that works at all. Depending heavily on your location and actual work (tower, dispatch, approach, center, etc.) you have extremely varying but somewhat repeated workloads.
I personally worked center positions exclusively, so while I was technically trained for other positions I never actually worked them. I do however have colleagues who worked approach, and at least somewhat know their types of workload. Assuming your scenario from the first post it may have actually fallen into my hands to tell you the same thing on occasion if approach is sufficiently slammed that they ask for a hold on our handoff. SOP varies but basically we are free to use the airspace and procedures in that airspace however we deem safe and efficient. If there is an established holding pattern it may even be SOP to hold on center before sending them to Approach in the first place.
That being said we deal with information retention and relay. That means any information that is relevant to our situational picture needs to be available and conveyed if and as necessary. I might instruct a pilot to "hold REKEN as published expect further clearance in 5 minutes" and even add "due congestion" if I feel it will improve the situational picture of the pilots and I have the time/mental capacity to spare.
What do I expect as a response? Readback and maybe acknowledgement of the information. I then proceed with my scan as per usual. Meaning you, as in the pilot I just talked with, are now on the stack of information again and I'm selecting the next piece requiring attention. Technically speaking I probably already started scanning again while still giving you the instruction, but I would not select a next target until you confirmed.
There is some subtlety here to unpack: If I give you the time there _at all_ it means that is my plan. If a center controller gives you that it will be as coordinated with approach, meaning we likely don't know anything else, at best our coordinating controller might if that's not ourselves. I'd imagine that if it was from Approach it'd be different actually. Note that I used "further clearance" instead of "approach clearance". If I as center tell you the former, that's just normal, we don't give approach clearances. If approach tells you that, those 5 minutes might not be all you'll be waiting for, or even are likely to not be.
In either case you'd be expected to voice any concerns with my plan, especially on fuel. In your case if you get held by center you could reasonably inquire if there are further holds to be expected, which I might or might not know about and would tell you so. ("Delay not determined <Reason>") If that is an issue I'd expect to be informed something like "hold REKEN, expect further clearance in 5 minutes, we are able to hold for 20 minutes until minimum fuel."
In this situation you would have been unlikely to know that at the time you do the readback of course, but it's perfectly acceptable to come back to us with it: "request expected delay until approach clearance, 11 minutes until minimum fuel."
The information will now, once again, get lobbed on the stack. If I'm at center and don't have further information my coordinating controller would probably already be on the phone asking about it. If I was alone I would pick up the phone at that moment unless something more urgent came up in the meantime. All you'd get in that case is "Roger, no further information available." For approach the information would become part of their planning for sequencing, but you'd also get a clearer response, most likely even an expected approach time.
Now that was very nitty gritty, so how about I try a tldr:
ATCs job is to combine all available information and to ensure "safe and efficient air traffic". In Europe we are trained specifically for retaining what amounts to random pieces of information and use all of it to handle a frankly staggering amount of air traffic in exceedingly optimized ways. Frankly: If the information you give us is in any way pertinent, I don't know a controller who would be irritated, let alone annoyed, at getting it. If we consider it relevant we will remember, if we consider it irrelevant (for example when we already know there won't be further delay) we'll discard it and inform you ("Expect no further delay.")
You obviously don't want to flood the airwaves with useless information, that's fair, but at the same time do whatever you can to avoid us having to write a report later. We like those just about as little as you do. And regarding PENKOs interaction: Having the information is better than not. It goes on the pile and if anything goes wrong it's one less transmission to make at crunch time.
Important: The Minimum Fuel call is _just information_. As I said repeatedly it will just go on "the stack". You will not get preferential treatment or anything. You should get additional information in case of further delays, or even early notice of probable unavailability of your preferred airport.
While I'm not privy to the reasoning behind the changes it is logical to me to reduce the threshold from a "Pan pan" because I, and likely the overwhelming majority of my colleagues, would rather have that information than belatedly realize you've been agonizing over it for the past 5 minutes while we were happily giving a little extra space to make the 1900 wave at FRA a bit more bearable.
P.S.: If this wall of text annoys anyone, blame Musician, he made me write it :P
This might also explain the "indifference" you may perceive in your interaction. As crazy as it may sound to you, but we're actually trained to be dispassionate and somewhat "detached". When you get to your "desk" you are very much the person in charge of what is going to happen in the next few hours. You have ups and downs, periods of low intensity, and those with high intensity. For me as an ATCO that is not how that works at all. Depending heavily on your location and actual work (tower, dispatch, approach, center, etc.) you have extremely varying but somewhat repeated workloads.
I personally worked center positions exclusively, so while I was technically trained for other positions I never actually worked them. I do however have colleagues who worked approach, and at least somewhat know their types of workload. Assuming your scenario from the first post it may have actually fallen into my hands to tell you the same thing on occasion if approach is sufficiently slammed that they ask for a hold on our handoff. SOP varies but basically we are free to use the airspace and procedures in that airspace however we deem safe and efficient. If there is an established holding pattern it may even be SOP to hold on center before sending them to Approach in the first place.
That being said we deal with information retention and relay. That means any information that is relevant to our situational picture needs to be available and conveyed if and as necessary. I might instruct a pilot to "hold REKEN as published expect further clearance in 5 minutes" and even add "due congestion" if I feel it will improve the situational picture of the pilots and I have the time/mental capacity to spare.
What do I expect as a response? Readback and maybe acknowledgement of the information. I then proceed with my scan as per usual. Meaning you, as in the pilot I just talked with, are now on the stack of information again and I'm selecting the next piece requiring attention. Technically speaking I probably already started scanning again while still giving you the instruction, but I would not select a next target until you confirmed.
There is some subtlety here to unpack: If I give you the time there _at all_ it means that is my plan. If a center controller gives you that it will be as coordinated with approach, meaning we likely don't know anything else, at best our coordinating controller might if that's not ourselves. I'd imagine that if it was from Approach it'd be different actually. Note that I used "further clearance" instead of "approach clearance". If I as center tell you the former, that's just normal, we don't give approach clearances. If approach tells you that, those 5 minutes might not be all you'll be waiting for, or even are likely to not be.
In either case you'd be expected to voice any concerns with my plan, especially on fuel. In your case if you get held by center you could reasonably inquire if there are further holds to be expected, which I might or might not know about and would tell you so. ("Delay not determined <Reason>") If that is an issue I'd expect to be informed something like "hold REKEN, expect further clearance in 5 minutes, we are able to hold for 20 minutes until minimum fuel."
In this situation you would have been unlikely to know that at the time you do the readback of course, but it's perfectly acceptable to come back to us with it: "request expected delay until approach clearance, 11 minutes until minimum fuel."
The information will now, once again, get lobbed on the stack. If I'm at center and don't have further information my coordinating controller would probably already be on the phone asking about it. If I was alone I would pick up the phone at that moment unless something more urgent came up in the meantime. All you'd get in that case is "Roger, no further information available." For approach the information would become part of their planning for sequencing, but you'd also get a clearer response, most likely even an expected approach time.
Now that was very nitty gritty, so how about I try a tldr:
ATCs job is to combine all available information and to ensure "safe and efficient air traffic". In Europe we are trained specifically for retaining what amounts to random pieces of information and use all of it to handle a frankly staggering amount of air traffic in exceedingly optimized ways. Frankly: If the information you give us is in any way pertinent, I don't know a controller who would be irritated, let alone annoyed, at getting it. If we consider it relevant we will remember, if we consider it irrelevant (for example when we already know there won't be further delay) we'll discard it and inform you ("Expect no further delay.")
You obviously don't want to flood the airwaves with useless information, that's fair, but at the same time do whatever you can to avoid us having to write a report later. We like those just about as little as you do. And regarding PENKOs interaction: Having the information is better than not. It goes on the pile and if anything goes wrong it's one less transmission to make at crunch time.
Important: The Minimum Fuel call is _just information_. As I said repeatedly it will just go on "the stack". You will not get preferential treatment or anything. You should get additional information in case of further delays, or even early notice of probable unavailability of your preferred airport.
While I'm not privy to the reasoning behind the changes it is logical to me to reduce the threshold from a "Pan pan" because I, and likely the overwhelming majority of my colleagues, would rather have that information than belatedly realize you've been agonizing over it for the past 5 minutes while we were happily giving a little extra space to make the 1900 wave at FRA a bit more bearable.
P.S.: If this wall of text annoys anyone, blame Musician, he made me write it :P
