Declaring minimum fuel

[HiSpeedFlyer]

I had a similar experience going into Florida once....

After extensive delays in climbing out of the NY airspace ( we all know about that deal) and holds into our destination in Fl, we had to call min fuel.

ATC: Are you declaring an emergency, XXX?
Me: No sir, I am declaring min fuel.
ATC: Am I to understand you are not declaring an emergency?
Me: If we continue to debate it, sir, it may turn into an emergency, I am declaring min fuel, over.
ATC: oh.........(pregnant pause) Ok, cleared direct, decend and.....


Some men, you just can't reach.

 

[IDEtoNJA]

I'm looking for some thoughts on declaring minimum fuel. I've flown with captains that have done it and some that absolutly refuse to and will instead make a fuel stop at a different airport that would not have been necessary if ATC could have helped out a bit.

Say you're in a holding pattern close to your destination airport, they give you an EFC time and you figure out you can make it with alternate and reserve fuel, but then they give you another EFC time for 20 minutes later and now you figure that you will start eating into this reserve/alternate fuel. Should you declare minimum fuel in hopes of getting priority, or should you request a different destination (you're in a light private jet that can land at a number of nearby airports).

What if you're on a long cross country flight just inside the range of your aircraft. But 300 miles out, ATC descends you down low and if you descend you won't be able to make your airport (with reserve fuel). Should you declare minimum fuel in hopes they can keep you higher for longer, or should you just plan on making a fuel stop now (assuming there's a suitable airport available).

I guess the real question is, should you ask for and expect special treatment if you are running low on fuel to your destination, but have alternate fuel stops available along the way? Anyone ever have to deal with negative consequenses of declaring minimum fuel (when there was a suitable fuel stop nearby)?

Like everything else in life the answer could be: "It depends!"

There is a story floating around of a pilot declaring a minimum fuel advisory upon hand-off to the departure controller. Could this scenario be considered reasonable?

The scenarios with unplanned holding, delays, etc are reasonable in my opinion.

The scenarios involving a flight to the range limit of the aircraft are more of the "it depends" situations. Does the flight consist of a flight to the Northeast corridor? It is legal to plan on optimum routing and fuel consumption. However, is it prudent on planning a flight to KTEB that does not include the customary early descents and re-routs -- in particular, when a published arrival calls for it?

Just my 1.5 cents.

 

[172driver]

I don't believe atc is trying to get anyone to declare an emergency when they reach min fuel status. They are asking those questions to make the situation very clear on the tapes. There have been many crews who have declared min fuel when they were really in a fuel emergency, or ended up in an emergency situation because communications were not clear and assertive.

Min fuel means you cannot accept any further delay. ATC will do what they can, but they certainly don't have to, and sometimes don't. Declaring an emergency makes their responsibilities very clear.

 

[Flex-ible]

While holding over HPN a few weeks ago, I heard one of our regional brothers tell ATC, "We're at minimum fuel. If we don't get clearance now, we will have to divert to Allentown."

ATC: "You're cleared direct Allentown."

You might get what you ask for.....

 

[Galaxy]

Here ya go--clear as MUD!

5-2-14. MINIMUM FUEL ​

If an aircraft declares a state of "minimum fuel," inform any facility to whom control jurisdiction is transferred of the minimum fuel problem and be alert for any occurrence which might delay the aircraft en route.
NOTE-
Use of the term minimum fuel indicates recognition by a pilot that the fuel supply has reached a state whereupon reaching destination, any undue delay cannot be accepted. This is not an emergency situation, but merely an advisory that indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur. A minimum fuel advisory does not imply a need for traffic priority. Common sense and good judgment will determine the extent of assistance to be given in minimum fuel situations. If, at any time, the remaining usable fuel supply suggests the need for traffic priority to ensure a safe landing, the pilot should declare an emergency and report fuel remaining in minutes.

 

[Say Again Over]

I don't believe atc is trying to get anyone to declare an emergency when they reach min fuel status. They are asking those questions to make the situation very clear on the tapes. There have been many crews who have declared min fuel when they were really in a fuel emergency, or ended up in an emergency situation because communications were not clear and assertive

Exactly, remember the flight from Columbia? Controllers are keenly aware of the difference.

 

[tankerswede]

Exactly, remember the flight from Columbia? Controllers are keenly aware of the difference.

From the NTSB report on Avianca flight 052:

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The failure of the flight crew to adequately manage the airplane's fuel load, and their failure to communicate an emergency fuel situation to air traffic control before fuel exhaustion
occurred. Contributing to the accident was the flight crew's failure to use an airline operational control dispatch system to assist them during the international flight into a high-density airport in poor weather. Also contributing to the accident was inadequate traffic flow management by the FAA and the lack of standardized understandable terminology for pilots and controllers for minimum and emergency fuel states. The Safety Board also determines that windshear, crew fatigue and stress were factors that led to the unsuccessful completion of the first approach and thus contributed to the accident."

Looks like some action was actually taken as a result of this accident. It also drives home the point that just because I am legal to take off, climb directly to optimum altitude, stay there until able to do an idle power descent direct to the destination runway and still have my legal reserves by a pound or two does not make that a prudent decision. This is particularly true when that destination is, for example, HPN or TEB (or any number of other high density airports scattered around the country).

 

[acaTerry]

I concur.

I was going into Santa Fe one time on a CAVU day and someone in a Cessna was doing practice instrument approaches. We were given a hold as a result, which would have put us tight on fuel (hey it was in a Beechjet) so we simply told the controller we were min fuel. No problem, he had the Cessna make a one-pattern hold in his procedure turn and we came straight in and landed.

So I have to ask....did the mighy Beechjet have the performance ability to depart SAF?:laugh:

 

[Coool Hand Luke]

So I have to ask....did the mighy Beechjet have the performance ability to depart SAF?:laugh:

The Fujitsu said so!