![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Callback #318
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/callback_issues/cb_318.htm ³Minimum Fuel" Does Not Mean Priority Handling Recent ASRS incident reports reveal a common misunderstanding involving use of the phrase ³minimum fuel. Pilots may tell ATC that they have ³minimum fuel with the expectation that they will receive priority handling. However, ATC is under no obligation to provide priority handling unless the pilot declares a fuel ³emergency. The AIM (section 5-5-15) provides further clarification: *Advise ATC of your minimum fuel status when your fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching destination, you cannot accept any undue delay. *Be aware that this is not an emergency situation, but merely an advisory. *Be aware [that] a minimum fuel advisory does not imply a need for traffic priority. *If the remaining usable fuel supply suggests the need for traffic priority to ensure a safe landing, you should declare an emergency due to low fuel and report fuel remaining in minutes. Controllers have several responsibilities when advised of a ³minimum fuel situation they must relay this information to the ATC facility to which control jurisdiction is transferred; and be alert for any occurrence that might delay the aircraft. Controllers are also encouraged to use ³common sense and good judgement [to] determine the extent of assistance to be given in minimum fuel situations. (Order 7110.65, Air Traffic Control) A report from an MD-80 Captain describes a ³minimum fuel situation and shows how ATC used its judgement to declare an emergency when the flight crew was reluctant to use the ³E word. (Editor¹s note: See CALLBACK #310 for a fuller discussion of emergency declarations.) Callback #310 http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/callback_issues/cb_310.htm According to the FAA's Pilot/Controller Glossary, an Emergency is "a distress or an urgency condition." The Glossary defines distress as "a condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and requiring immediate assistance." Urgency is defined as "a condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition." Since most would agree on what constitutes a distress condition (e.g. fire, mechanical failure, structural damage), the challenge appears to be for pilots and controllers to recognize when an "urgent" condition justifies declaring an emergency. The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) states: "...Some are reluctant to report an urgency condition when they encounter situations which may not be immediately perilous, but are potentially catastrophic." The following ASRS reports show that air traffic controllers may have another viewpoint regarding the need to use the "E"word. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Is Your Airplane Susceptible To Mis Fu eling? A Simple Test For Fuel Contamination. | Nathan Young | Piloting | 4 | June 14th 04 06:13 PM |
Yo! Fuel Tank! | Veeduber | Home Built | 15 | October 25th 03 02:57 AM |
Pumping fuel backwards through an electric fuel pump | Greg Reid | Home Built | 15 | October 7th 03 07:09 PM |
Hot weather and autogas? | Rich S. | Home Built | 33 | July 30th 03 11:25 PM |