Ask The Pilot

[Cruiser Elite]

Thanks for your replies jb! Love reading them.

+1 - all these years I thought Hawkey and Peter Abeles were on the money - clearly not so.

 

[bossreggie]

Further to the fuel discussion.

With the "minimum" being 30 minutes as per your post, at what point would a pilot have to declare a "fuel emergency"?

Are you also able to comment on the procedure if that was required. Finally, have you ever had to declare a fuel emergency and if so what were the circumstances?

Thanks a lot.

Boss

 

[straitman]

I have declared a fuel emergency once at Pearce whilst flying a Macchi Jet.

I have also declared a fuel emergency when caught by weather in Bass Strait which required an IFR (ILS) recovery when we did not have the planned fuel for that recovery. Normally we could/would have gone back to an offshore platform but we had a medivac on board that prioritised recovery.

 

[jb747]

Further to the fuel discussion.

With the "minimum" being 30 minutes as per your post, at what point would a pilot have to declare a "fuel emergency"?

Are you also able to comment on the procedure if that was required. Finally, have you ever had to declare a fuel emergency and if so what were the circumstances?

Technically, you can declare a fuel emergency if you are going to land with less than the statutory reserves (that 30 minutes).

I've never declared one. I did once tell the FO to do so if ATC mucked us around (during a diversion to alternate in Europe), but they were right on top of it.

Closest I've ever been was in Sydney. 20 minutes of holding was required. We'd gone around in circles for 40 minutes, and I told the FO to tell ATC that we'd be leaving the hold for Sydney the next time we passed over the fix. Their response amazes me to this day, as they came back and asked what was my 'latest diversion time'. Response to that was 'as we pass over the fix'....and to Sydney.

I was staggered. ATC had no idea of the fuel states of the aircraft in the holding pattern.

And Straightman...the Macchi doesn't count. I'd hate to think of the fuel states that some of the students reached. I recall going past Gin Gin with the low fuel light on...which I think was 300 lbs...and no way was I going to slow down (guess that's why I became a knuck). Landed an A4 once with about 6 minutes fuel...but the military does not work to the same rules. Over Bass Straight in a helo would be scarier.....

 

[SarahSch]

Cool, sounds awesome

 

[markis10]

I was staggered. ATC had no idea of the fuel states of the aircraft in the holding pattern....

Since the demise of operational control in Australia, this responsibility has been handed back to the airline, ATC separate aircraft assuming that they have sufficient fuel as per the current minima including traffic and weather allowances, operational matters now rest with the operator/PIC and have done so for some time AFAIK.

 

[Paddy55]

Thanks for your replies jb! Love reading them.

+1


Again, JB, really appreciate your time replying to all in this thread.
It is very, very informative

Paddy

 

[jb747]

Since the demise of operational control in Australia, this responsibility has been handed back to the airline, ATC separate aircraft assuming that they have sufficient fuel as per the current minima including traffic and weather allowances, operational matters now rest with the operator/PIC and have done so for some time AFAIK.

That's all well and good, but, given that, on the day, the ATC holding requirement was for 20 minutes, and aircraft had been holding for much longer than that, I'd have expected that common sense would have had the controllers wondering just how much fuel the aircraft had. The overwhelming impression that I had was that they thought the aircraft were solar powered....

 

[Sparra]

ATC had no idea of the fuel states of the aircraft in the holding pattern.

How would they unless you told them?

controllers wondering just how much fuel the aircraft had

That's why they asked for LDT, no point guessing.

 

[jb747]

How would they unless you told them?

Quite true, but it would be a reasonable assumption that the airlines would not carry dramatically more holding fuel than required. If you require 20, any aircraft that you hold for 40 will be nearing the end of its flexibility.

That's why they asked for LDT, no point guessing.

I'm not sure that asking for it after we've told them we're out is all that reasonable. It was interesting, because it started a cascade of similar calls....and I really wonder how much some of the operators had left.

Having been to NYC on some pretty bad days, it was interesting that the controllers there were asking if your fuel state was 'ok' any time they stuck you into a hold. They didn't ask for the numbers, and if you said no, you were then processed for a diversion, but fuel was on their minds.

 

[Sparra]

reasonable assumption

Air Traffic Controllers never assume, especially when it comes to pilots And you'd expect an airline crew to pipe up if they needed priority, don't want to be accused of getting in the coughpit. The VFR C172 caught out in weather and lost, that's who you would be asking and be worried about.


NY Centre asking, not surprised didn't they lose one a few years back, Avianca Flight 52.

 

[straitman]

Air Traffic Controllers never assume, especially when it comes to pilots And you'd expect an airline crew to pipe up if they needed priority, don't want to be accused of getting in the coughpit. The VFR C172 caught out in weather and lost, that's who you would be asking and be worried about.

This probably should read ' Air Traffic Controllers should never assume,'

Back when I was instructing at Point Cook, Melbourne Centre lost me one day (over the top of Tullamarine) :!: :shock: :shock:

 

[Sparra]

Back when I was instructing at Point Cook, Melbourne Centre lost me one day (over the top of Tullamarine

Probably your tricky camouflage or over the top your in the cone of visual silence

 

[jb747]

I've got no problem with people assuming the worst....then whatever does happen is likely to be better.....

 

[markis10]

This probably should read ' Air Traffic Controllers should never assume,'

Back when I was instructing at Point Cook, Melbourne Centre lost me one day (over the top of Tullamarine) :!: :shock: :shock:

Safest place to lose you, all things considered.

 

[Sparra]

Rather deal in facts than assumptions, it's the control freak in me

 

[oz74]

Would have thought after 40 minutes in hold common sence would play a part in anyones thinking?

 

[markis10]

Controllers are often not aware of what reserves are required on a sector or approach level, it's their job to separate aircraft, end of story.

 

[darrend]

Safest place to lose you, all things considered.

Certainly is. No traffic at that point and you can most always get a clearance if you track overhead - there is a reason for that !!

 

[straitman]

Safest place to lose you, all things considered.

It is but only when they establish that that is where you are. That took them quite a while to do though and caused considerable chaos until they established where we were.

We were (meant to be) under positive control, ontop of cloud, and in the Laverton/Point Cook area.