Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

[digits_]

minimum fuel before you must* proceed to your alternate airport

Not sure if that * was referring to something else, but are there any SOPs that actually force you to proceed to your alternate?

I can understand having to proceed to your alternate after holding for XX minutes over a closed airport, but if due to traffic or headwinds you're at your minimum diversion fuel and your CAVOK destination is 5 minutes away and your alternate is an hour away, do you really have to divert to your alternate? Seems a bit weird. In some cases you might even be overflying your destination to get to your alternate.

[goingmissed]

As an airline pilot you are expected to follow Transport Canada approved standard operating procedures for your company aircraft. In regards to fuel, when you are going to land under your minimum diversion fuel (minimum fuel before you must* proceed to your alternate airport) you MUST declare a fuel emergency.

How does that rule get interpreted when you are already on a diversion to an alternate airport?

F* me... I stated that wrong. I said "minimum diversion fuel" where I should have said "reserve fuel"

If you are expecting to land with less than your reserve fuel amount in your tanks, you must declare fuel emergency.

[goingmissed]

minimum fuel before you must* proceed to your alternate airport

Not sure if that * was referring to something else, but are there any SOPs that actually force you to proceed to your alternate?

I can understand having to proceed to your alternate after holding for XX minutes over a closed airport, but if due to traffic or headwinds you're at your minimum diversion fuel and your CAVOK destination is 5 minutes away and your alternate is an hour away, do you really have to divert to your alternate? Seems a bit weird. In some cases you might even be overflying your destination to get to your alternate.

That asterisk was left there because, yes, there is ambiguity. The thing is, min-div is something you follow UNLESS planned otherwise ahead of time. For instance, if you're flying from Toronto to Montreal and the weather in YUL is clear, you might make a different plan, such as landing at another airport other than the alternate. Alternates are chosen based on forecasts and approaches available, but forecasts change and operational situations may lend to a different plan.

[trey kule]

If I understand this situation correctly, the island was not an acceptable alternate.
Why the crew would not have diverted to an acceptable alternate rather that return to an airport that would require them to declare an emergency baffles me a bit.

It does seem like when their destination was unavailable they simply chose to return to the departure airport.

I would like to see all the information on this come out.

[photofly]

As an airline pilot you are expected to follow Transport Canada approved standard operating procedures for your company aircraft. In regards to fuel, when you are going to land under your minimum diversion fuel (minimum fuel before you must* proceed to your alternate airport) you MUST declare a fuel emergency.

How does that rule get interpreted when you are already on a diversion to an alternate airport?

F* me... I stated that wrong. I said "minimum diversion fuel" where I should have said "reserve fuel"

If you are expecting to land with less than your reserve fuel amount in your tanks, you must declare fuel emergency.

Well, figure it like this, then.

1. YTZ is closed.
2. Therefore we have to go to YYZ (or in fact anywhere other than YTZ)
3. However when we land at YYZ (or anywhere else) we will have less than our reserve fuel, so, as of right now, we have a fuel emergency
4. Therefore YTZ is now open...
5. So we might as well land at YTZ.

Simple, no? I don't think the fuel emergency goes away, once it exists, and once you have a fuel emergency you have more options. And, if as a consequence of declaring a fuel emergency, you can avoid landing with less than your reserve fuel, isn't that a good thing?

[digits_]

o YYZ (or in fact anywhere other than YTZ)
3. However when we land at YYZ (or anywhere else) we will have less than our reserve fuel, so, as of right now, we have a fuel emergency
4. Therefore YTZ is now open...
5. So we might as well land at YTZ.

Simple, no? I don't think the fuel emergency goes away, once it exists, and once you have a fuel emergency you have more options. And, if as a consequence of declaring a fuel emergency, you can avoid landing with less than your reserve fuel, isn't that a good thing?

Which brings us to the next philosophical question: is an emergency you create yourself still worthy of getting priority handling?

If you run the risk of being low on fuel, would you choose an alternate that will be closed within a 5 minute window of your ETA, or would you choose one that's guaranteed to be open?

It's in the spirit of the regulations that alternates need to be 'better than meeting the minima' weather wise, so it stands to reason you should also make sure there is a certain window regarding opening hours.

Reminds me a bit of a situation that Ryanair created when they first started expanding in Europe. There was a lot of pressure from management to fly around with minimum fuel. So during thunderstorm season, lots of delays were experienced by airlines, and a disproportionate amount of fuel emergency calls were made by ryanair, skipping the holding wait lines due to low fuel on board.

[photofly]

Which brings us to the next philosophical question: is an emergency you create yourself still worthy of getting priority handling?

Of course it is. An emergency is an emergency. The decision-making that led to the emergency is up for discussion, but it has to be viewed from the pilot's perspective, at that time, of course.

In this case they turned around under the following circumstances:

diverted back to CYTZ as it could not land in CYUL due to the local weather conditions and surrounding airports
only accepting a limited number of diverted flights.

We don't have nearly enough information to want to start second-guessing that decision.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

The report says they turned around half way to Montreal. After getting a route back to YTZ, the FMC should have shown the crew exactly how much fuel they would have over the airport. The pilots would have known for a long time before ever commencing the approach to YTZ what their fuel status would be.

It can also be argued that the fuel used to get to YYZ OR YTZ from half way between Toronto and Montreal would be just about equal.

The question is then, once turned around and heading back to YTZ, why didn't the crew declare the emergency immediately if they knew what their fuel status would be? They should have known for a long time that they'd be landing with an uncomfortably low fuel state. Why wait until final approach into YTZ to declare the emergency? The only reasonable answer is that they thought they'd beat curfew, realized they would be a couple minutes late, and therefore declared the emergency to give an excuse to land after curfew.

If it were 2:00 in the morning and the situation were the same, I'm sure they would have chosen YYZ. Thinking they'd make it back to base before curfew and realizing too late that they'd be late is the only logical explanation.

[photofly]

The only reasonable answer is that they thought they'd beat curfew, realized they would be a couple minutes late, and therefore declared the emergency to give an excuse to land after curfew.

Νο, they tried to beat the curfew, and followed procedure by declaring a fuel emergency. At that point YTZ was open. They didn't need an "excuse" to land after curfew. It was permitted.

[digits_]

The only reasonable answer is that they thought they'd beat curfew, realized they would be a couple minutes late, and therefore declared the emergency to give an excuse to land after curfew.

Νο, they tried to beat the curfew, and followed procedure by declaring a fuel emergency. At that point YTZ was open. They didn't need an "excuse" to land after curfew. It was permitted.

Which brings us back to the original question if 1 hour of fuel in the tanks with a suitable airport 5 minutes of flying away constitutes an emergency.

[digits_]

I'm also wondering if the opinion of some of the posters here would change if it was an IFR Cirrus pilot who showed up on final with 45 minutes of fuel a few minutes after closing, declaring an emergency.

Or, if the plane showed up at 2 am with min fuel and declared an emergency to make it into CYTZ.

Both of those situations would also be genuine emergencies...

[photofly]

The only reasonable answer is that they thought they'd beat curfew, realized they would be a couple minutes late, and therefore declared the emergency to give an excuse to land after curfew.

Νο, they tried to beat the curfew, and followed procedure by declaring a fuel emergency. At that point YTZ was open. They didn't need an "excuse" to land after curfew. It was permitted.

Which brings us back to the original question if 1 hour of fuel in the tanks with a suitable airport 5 minutes of flying away constitutes an emergency.

You don't have to be on fire or be losing structural integrity to have, or declare, an emergency. If there are rules that say, given your fuel state, that you have a fuel emergency, then ... you have a fuel emergency. Is there supposed to be discretion about that? I don't think how you or anyone else feels about it - personal urgency or not - changes that, does it?

Suppose a crew landed at YYZ saying "hey, no sweat", when by the rules they should have declared a fuel emergency - even by one minute - that would be really bad, and worthy of sanction, wouldn't it?

Perhaps this crew followed the rules to the letter, and this was the one occasion when doing so made things more convenient and not less so? Or are we all so cynical and jaded about all the rules and regulations that we assume that cannot be possible?

[digits_]

Νο, they tried to beat the curfew, and followed procedure by declaring a fuel emergency. At that point YTZ was open. They didn't need an "excuse" to land after curfew. It was permitted.

Which brings us back to the original question if 1 hour of fuel in the tanks with a suitable airport 5 minutes of flying away constitutes an emergency.

You don't have to be on fire or be losing structural integrity to have, or declare, an emergency. If there are rules that say, given your fuel state, that you have a fuel emergency, then ... you have a fuel emergency. Is there supposed to be discretion about that? I don't think how you or anyone else feels about it - personal urgency or not - changes that, does it?

Suppose a crew landed at YYZ saying "hey, no sweat", when by the rules they should have declared a fuel emergency - even by one minute - that would be really bad, and worthy of sanction, wouldn't it?

Perhaps this crew followed the rules to the letter, and this was the one occasion when doing so made things more convenient and not less so? Or are we all so cynical and jaded about all the rules and regulations that we assume that cannot be possible?

My point is that I doubt any of those rules would have made this a fuel emergency. The -granted, limited amount of- sops I have had access to follow the icao rules that a fuel emergency exists if you anticipate using minimum reserve fuel.

1 hour of fuel would/should get you to CYYZ without an emergency.

[pelmet]

The only reasonable answer is that they thought they'd beat curfew, realized they would be a couple minutes late, and therefore declared the emergency to give an excuse to land after curfew.

Νο, they tried to beat the curfew, and followed procedure by declaring a fuel emergency. At that point YTZ was open. They didn't need an "excuse" to land after curfew. It was permitted.

Could you give us the exact detail of the procedure you are referring to, including the fuel trigger point(quantity or time remaining). It appears that you are familiar with it and it would be beneficial for understanding.

[photofly]

The only reasonable answer is that they thought they'd beat curfew, realized they would be a couple minutes late, and therefore declared the emergency to give an excuse to land after curfew.

Νο, they tried to beat the curfew, and followed procedure by declaring a fuel emergency. At that point YTZ was open. They didn't need an "excuse" to land after curfew. It was permitted.

Could you give us the exact detail of the procedure you are referring to, including the fuel trigger point(quantity or time remaining). It appears that you are familiar with it and it would be beneficial for understanding.

Oh no, I have no idea, except having been recently educated by my betters (my emphasis):

As an airline pilot you are expected to follow Transport Canada approved standard operating procedures for your company aircraft. In regards to fuel, when you are going to land under your minimum diversion fuel (minimum fuel before you must* proceed to your alternate airport) you MUST declare a fuel emergency.

How does that rule get interpreted when you are already on a diversion to an alternate airport?

F* me... I stated that wrong. I said "minimum diversion fuel" where I should have said "reserve fuel"

If you are expecting to land with less than your reserve fuel amount in your tanks, you must declare fuel emergency.

It's kind of funny to watch y'all rip into your colleagues for getting their passengers back safe to an airport they're familiar with, though. What a shame it falls to me to stand up for them.

[pelmet]

Νο, they tried to beat the curfew, and followed procedure by declaring a fuel emergency. At that point YTZ was open. They didn't need an "excuse" to land after curfew. It was permitted.

Could you give us the exact detail of the procedure you are referring to, including the fuel trigger point(quantity or time remaining). It appears that you are familiar with it and it would be beneficial for understanding.

Oh no, I have no idea, except having been recently educated by my betters (my emphasis):

How does that rule get interpreted when you are already on a diversion to an alternate airport?

F* me... I stated that wrong. I said "minimum diversion fuel" where I should have said "reserve fuel"

If you are expecting to land with less than your reserve fuel amount in your tanks, you must declare fuel emergency.

It's kind of funny to watch y'all rip into your colleagues for getting their passengers back safe to an airport they're familiar with, though. What a shame it falls to me to stand up for them.

I don't believe anybody has questioned the safety aspect. I am just confirming under what circumstances I can declare an emergency. If it can be a useful tool for convenience, it is what it is.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

The only reasonable answer is that they thought they'd beat curfew, realized they would be a couple minutes late, and therefore declared the emergency to give an excuse to land after curfew.

Νο, they tried to beat the curfew, and followed procedure by declaring a fuel emergency. At that point YTZ was open. They didn't need an "excuse" to land after curfew. It was permitted.

I completely understand trying to beat the curfew, but once turned around and headed to YTZ, the FMC would have given the crew their expected landing fuel status and they should have known right away they would be in a “fuel emergency” situation.

From that point on, the race was on to get back before curfew. Once they realized they’d miss it, declaring the emergency is their out to land after curfew.

All I’m saying is that the FMC is very accurate, and they should have known well before landing if a fuel emergency did or would exist.

[digits_]

Looks like this is the track of the flight we're discussing https://flightaware.com/live/flight/POE ... /CYTZ/CYUL

It might be worth noting they got a straight in approach on the way back. No last minute full procedure or other surprises.

[photofly]

I don't believe anybody has questioned the safety aspect. I am just confirming under what circumstances I can declare an emergency. If it can be a useful tool for convenience, it is what it is.

Me too. I've landed at 2259 local at CYTZ, and if there's a legitimate way to avoid the $5000 "fee" for landing at 2300, I'm up for exploring it.

[WANP]

I wasn't in the cockpit at the time, so cannot accurately describe the situation, or judge them.
But since it ended well, nobody perished, or even injured, overall the pilots did a good job IMHO.
Is it ever really wrong to be safety conscious when flying an airplane full of passengers?

We need less planes running out of fuel, and more landing safely.

[digits_]

I wasn't in the cockpit at the time, so cannot accurately describe the situation, or judge them.
But since it ended well, nobody perished, or even injured, overall the pilots did a good job IMHO.
Is it ever really wrong to be safety conscious when flying an airplane full of passengers?

We need less planes running out of fuel, and more landing safely.

It's wrong if an emergency is abused, or if it is intentionally self-inflicted to get priority and dodge other rules because they are inconvenient.
To clarify, I am not implying that is what happened here. I am however curious as to what the crew's thought process was. At first glance, it would seem they declared an emergency to avoid landing fees.

There are a few factors at play in that discussion.

1) They declared an emergency and got priority handling. That's great, that's what's supposed to happen. I don't think anybody would disagree with that.
2) Was the emergency perceived to be real?
1 hour of fuel to divert to an airport 5 minutes away in it self might not be an emergency. Maybe they were expecting a 20 minute STAR or a long hold or something else, that could have forecasted a landing with less than min fuel remaining. Or maybe they were calculating a worst case scenario which nobody realistically expected to happen.
3) Was this emergency self-inflicted?
This is where the available information and details are getting a bit fuzzy. They declared an emergency on final approach. Looking at the direct track they got, the straight in approach, they likely got their best case scenario. And they were still 2 minutes late. I would expect a savvy pilot to know before they are on approach whether or not they would make it before the airport closed.
4) Was it intentional?
One can only speculate.
I doubt they would have picked the airport as an alternate if it would have been the only one in a 200 mile radius and would have been physically unusable at their ETA. I don't think they would have gambled money on making it in on time. I suspect (and hope) the option of declaring an emergency would have been discussed along the route. However, at that point, it would have been perfectly possible to fly to YYZ without the need for an emergency.

I think it's important to consider all these factors. Declaring emergencies are a very valuable tool in case you're in a pickle. And you shouldn't be afraid to use them. However, if one were to intentionally fly themselves into a corner in order to take shortcuts out of convenience, then we're heading down the wrong path IMO.

After all, if intentionally self inflicting emergencies would be acceptable, then what's the point of having any rules in place at all?
Don't like the approach ban? Circle over the airport till minimum fuel, declare an emergency, bust minima and land.

Don't want to be number 15 for landing in JFK? Take off with minimum VFR fuel, circle for 5 minutes, declare a fuel emergency and be number 1.

On the other hand, if you misread your fuel situation, have broken gauge, miscalculate, declare a fuel emergency and then land with 4 hours of fuel on board, I'd have no issue with that. Errors and mistakes happen. As long as you don't make them intentionally.

Also note that the CADORs mentioned the amount of fuel left on board. So somebody followed up. Which makes sense.

[WANP]

I wasn't in the cockpit at the time, so cannot accurately describe the situation, or judge them.
But since it ended well, nobody perished, or even injured, overall the pilots did a good job IMHO.
Is it ever really wrong to be safety conscious when flying an airplane full of passengers?

We need less planes running out of fuel, and more landing safely.

It's wrong if an emergency is abused, or if it is intentionally self-inflicted to get priority and dodge other rules because they are inconvenient.
To clarify, I am not implying that is what happened here. I am however curious as to what the crew's thought process was. At first glance, it would seem they declared an emergency to avoid landing fees.

There are a few factors at play in that discussion.

1) They declared an emergency and got priority handling. That's great, that's what's supposed to happen. I don't think anybody would disagree with that.
2) Was the emergency perceived to be real?
1 hour of fuel to divert to an airport 5 minutes away in it self might not be an emergency. Maybe they were expecting a 20 minute STAR or a long hold or something else, that could have forecasted a landing with less than min fuel remaining. Or maybe they were calculating a worst case scenario which nobody realistically expected to happen.
3) Was this emergency self-inflicted?
This is where the available information and details are getting a bit fuzzy. They declared an emergency on final approach. Looking at the direct track they got, the straight in approach, they likely got their best case scenario. And they were still 2 minutes late. I would expect a savvy pilot to know before they are on approach whether or not they would make it before the airport closed.
4) Was it intentional?
One can only speculate.
I doubt they would have picked the airport as an alternate if it would have been the only one in a 200 mile radius and would have been physically unusable at their ETA. I don't think they would have gambled money on making it in on time. I suspect (and hope) the option of declaring an emergency would have been discussed along the route. However, at that point, it would have been perfectly possible to fly to YYZ without the need for an emergency.

I think it's important to consider all these factors. Declaring emergencies are a very valuable tool in case you're in a pickle. And you shouldn't be afraid to use them. However, if one were to intentionally fly themselves into a corner in order to take shortcuts out of convenience, then we're heading down the wrong path IMO.

After all, if intentionally self inflicting emergencies would be acceptable, then what's the point of having any rules in place at all?
Don't like the approach ban? Circle over the airport till minimum fuel, declare an emergency, bust minima and land.

Don't want to be number 15 for landing in JFK? Take off with minimum VFR fuel, circle for 5 minutes, declare a fuel emergency and be number 1.

On the other hand, if you misread your fuel situation, have broken gauge, miscalculate, declare a fuel emergency and then land with 4 hours of fuel on board, I'd have no issue with that. Errors and mistakes happen. As long as you don't make them intentionally.

Also note that the CADORs mentioned the amount of fuel left on board. So somebody followed up. Which makes sense.

I'm in full agreement with you.

Nobody should declare a fake emergency.

And I bet if they do it again next month they get to sit down and explain why in an uncomfortable conversation.

But I wasn't in either front seat, so cannot judge is my point.

Does it look suspicious? Yes it does.

Do I have any proof it was a made up pile of bull feces? No Idon't.

Two people know for certain, they were sitting in the front seats, and they have to live with their own conscious if they lied.

Me personally, it would be terrible. The guilt would eat me up inside.

But if I ever legitimately need to call a low fuel emergency I will without hesitation.

Better to be thought an idiot, than crash a plane because it ran out of go juice.

[photofly]

I thought the whole point about a fuel emergency was that there was no discretion to not call it.

I don't know the provenance of this page:
https://skybrary.aero/articles/fuel-eme ... ontrollers

but it includes the text "The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency ”MAYDAY FUEL”, when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel. Declaration of a fuel emergency is an explicit statement that priority handling by ATC is both required and expected."

Having a clear point at which priority handling must be requested seems like a really good idea to me. No need for this:

Me personally, it would be terrible. The guilt would eat me up inside.

[digits_]

I thought the whole point about a fuel emergency was that there was no discretion to not call it.

I don't know the provenance of this page:
https://skybrary.aero/articles/fuel-eme ... ontrollers

but it includes the text "The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency ”MAYDAY FUEL”, when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel. Declaration of a fuel emergency is an explicit statement that priority handling by ATC is both required and expected."

Having a clear point at which priority handling must be requested seems like a really good idea to me. No need for this:

Me personally, it would be terrible. The guilt would eat me up inside.

Just because you have to declare it if it is about to happen, doesn't mean you get to cause it intentionally without consequences, or declare it if you know it is not really required.

No need for this:

Me personally, it would be terrible. The guilt would eat me up inside.

If you were to intentionally lie and declare an emergency, I would hope you would also feel guilty. That's what that quote was about.

[photofly]

Just because you have to declare it if it is about to happen, doesn't mean you get to cause it intentionally without consequences, or declare it if you know it is not really required.

To the contrary, if you must declare it, you must declare it - even if you know it's not really required. You can't have it be both compulsory, and then allow pilots discretion to not declare it if they think it's not really required. It's one or the other.

I would certainly think poorly of a crew whose rules required them, without the choice, to declare a fuel emergency, but decided they didn't want to raise a fuss, and that was ok because they would only eat into their reserve fuel "just a little bit."

Causing it intentionally is an interesting question. Is there a rule that says "thou shalt take all measures to avoid the situation where 'the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel'?"

If there were such a rule, then every fuel emergency would require the pilots to have broken this rule, and so every fuel emergency would be sanctionable.

Every fuel emergency (by the rule quoted) is "intentional" because in almost every case the crew could have elected to land short yet must have chosen to continue in order for the fuel emergency to have arisen. So I don't think intentionality can come into play.

You're treating this different somehow because the crew were already diverting. "Heck," I hear you say, "they should have switched their diversion destination to avoid a fuel emergency". But surely, once you choose to divert to a new destination, that destination becomes your 'destination', and diverting to a third airport to avoid a fuel emergency is no more required than diverting from your primary destination to avoid a fuel emergency would be. As long as they expected to land with the reserve fuel intact at the time they decided to go to YTZ, what did they do wrong?