"Minimum Fuel" vs "Emergency Fuel"

[SteveC]

NASA ASRS Callback

 

[BobDDuck]

Good thing I saw this thread. I was about to post the same thing.

It's one of the more useful ASRS I've read in a while. One thing I didn't understand was why the 737 crew declared an emergency as opposed to going to their alternate. There probably is more to the story, but it seemed kind of strange.

 

[CFIscare]

It's one of the more useful ASRS I've read in a while. One thing I didn't understand was why the 737 crew declared an emergency as opposed to going to their alternate. There probably is more to the story, but it seemed kind of strange.

I hate speculating, but to me that is abusing the system. Of course, like you said, there is probably more to the story.

 

[MikeD]

In a number of recent ASRS reports, Part 121 pilots bemoan the fact that they declared “minimum fuel” and were disappointed (irate in some cases) that they weren’t afforded priority handling by ATC. It’s evident that some pilots in today’s cost-conscious airline industry are unaware of the need to declare a fuel emergency if they need to have their arrival expedited. The emergency declaration is a tool they need to have in their flight bags when appropriate.

It's the same thing I've been harping about regarding declaring an emergency. If its possible that you might not (due to circumstances) get priority handling when using the E-word, you definitely won't get it by just declaring min fuel.

An interesting tidbit I heard on the ATC freqs that caught my attention years ago was an IFE in progress. In that instance, an aircraft declared an emergency in Class B airspace. The weather was broken CB with rain, enough-so that IFR aircraft were being vectored to instrument final, with no visual approaches being issued. The aircraft with the IFE (rough-running engine on a Cessna 421) couldn't understand why he wasn't getting immediate vectors to final to land, and why he was told to "stand-by" by ATC. He raised hell a few times about it to ATC. But there seemed to be, from my perspective, a few things he failed to understand about ATC and how they work. Now, I fully understand that anytime someone declares an IFE, they expect, and should receive, priority handling to the maximum extent possible. Keep in mind the last part of that sentence: "to the maximum extent possible." When someone has an IFE, their only worry is (rightfully) their aircraft and themselves, but they've got to understand why some things may happen that may not initially go their way. When an IFE gets declared to ATC, the controller's entire scope doesn't come to a grinding halt. He still has those (possibly) 10, 20, or more MTI "blips" to sequence and separate. Once someone declares an IFE, chances are, they've now thrown a monkey wrench into the controllers sequence/separation plan; they're a pain-in-the-ass now for all intents and purposes. He still has his other traffic to work while he works to prioritize the IFE, and may very well have to have the IFE "stand by" while he coordinates with other sectors/tower for the IFE, etc; this workload being possibly multiplied ten-fold if the WX is actual IFR due to sequencing needs and the lack of visual approaches/separation available. Often times, an IFE may just have to recover within the flow that's already in place. It's a crap-sandwich, I know, but you play the cards you're dealt, and they're rarely going to be four-of-a-kind Aces.

I can remember being in Korea and having a hydraulic malfunction/failure. Returning to base following declaring my IFE with the Korean ATC, and figuring I'd be able to recover quickly, I'm instead sent to holding with an EAC time, as I find out I'm IFE #7 in line........1 with an engine shutdown, 3 with min fuel, one with electrical problems being led in for a landing, one NORDO and inbound and will likely just be hitting the IAF for the HI-TACAN and immediately commencing the penetration track, and then me........the least priority emergency of the 7 of us who are declared emergencies; along with the other recovering fighters who, if given delays, will themselves become emergencies. All while the winds had forced ATC to turn the PAR dish around, and that took time to accomplish and setup. I was also held since when i was asked "fuel and souls onboard", it was determined I had ample fuel to hold in comparison to the other fighters that carried little and burned it too fast.

 

[n57flyguy]

Excellent share Steve, thanks!

And Mike, I enjoyed that write up.

 

[Polar742]

An excellent Article

I beg the author's forgiveness in advance.

 

[Dokk]

I hate speculating, but to me that is abusing the system. Of course, like you said, there is probably more to the story.

Would you be willing to elaborate on why you feel they were abusing the system?

In the ASRS the crew stated, "The firm reply from Center was, ‘Hold or divert to ZZZ or declare an emergency.’ We went back to the computer and checked the numbers again. We also notified Dispatch what was going on and the decision that I was about to make. We did not have enough fuel for ZZZ to land safely."

So the crew felt diverting to the alternate would have lead to the same fuel issue. Was there a separate reason you felt they were abusing the system?

 

[fish314]

Both articles above are excellent, but it got me to thinking: why even have a term "minimum fuel" if not to convey to ATC that you need some level of priority?

It seems like the guidance for controllers should change. After all, we all know that what I mean by "minimum fuel" is basically that I have a low fuel state that can brook no excessive delays. It's bad, it's just not that bad yet.

If ATC's policy is to do nothing until I've declared "emergency fuel" aren't they behaving a little like the pilot who decides to do nothing about that engine gauge that's "a little off" until it catches fire? I mean, doesn't that force the airplane to put itself into an emergency situation that could have been avoided?

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

"Min Fuel" is good, because it let's the controllers know that if they have to vector or delay you, you WILL be declaring an emergency. It's a heads up to them and can help them to get their ducks in a row. I have used it once or twice...no problems, and no IFE needed.

cliff
LFW

 

[fish314]

Hi!

"Min Fuel" is good, because it let's the controllers know that if they have to vector or delay you, you WILL be declaring an emergency. It's a heads up to them and can help them to get their ducks in a row. I have used it once or twice...no problems, and no IFE needed.

cliff
LFW

That is kind of my point, though. They sound like they were giving you priority... although maybe not the same level of priority that you would get in an IFE. And that is exactly what I think most pilots would expect them to do (despite the regulation explicitly saying that priority is not required when a pilot announces "minimum fuel").

I think that the regulation should say something along the lines of "priority should be given to aircraft that declare minimum fuel, although this declaration may require a lower level of priority than an emergency fuel, other emergencies, or some other non-standard operations that may not rise to the level of an emergency (such as a NORDO aircraft, for example) might require."

Isn't that what usually happens (and what common sense tells us should probably happen) in practice anyways?

 

[E_Dawg]

It's like having the yellow light before the red. Just a bit of warning before you gotta pull out the big guns and drop the e-word

 

[Barty]

I think that the regulation should say something along the lines of "priority should be given to aircraft that declare minimum fuel, although this declaration may require a lower level of priority than an emergency fuel, other emergencies, or some other non-standard operations that may not rise to the level of an emergency (such as a NORDO aircraft, for example) might require."

As it is taught today, an aircraft that declares minimum fuel has enough fuel to reach their destination, and their alternate, but that's about it. They will possibly have very little reserve when they land. So in my mind, as long as you're kept on your current route of flight, you're OK. If you really need priority, you should declare a fuel emergency instead of beating around the bush stating minimum fuel. I don't think any pilot, given the way the .65 is currently written, should expect to be taken off of an arrival or otherwise be given a shortcut to their destination from a minimum fuel declaration.