Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by pelmet »

goingmissed wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:28 pm
pelmet wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:03 pm I would think YYZ would be safer. Parallel long runways, ILS, better lighting, CFR, perhaps ATC control, etc. About one minute longer on a flight from YUL, although a min flap landing might save fuel which can't be done so easy on a short runway. Not so convenient though.
Safer? If the island was unsafe for a Q400 operating normally, it wouldn't be used as a commercial airport with Q400s.
Nowhere did I say that YTZ is unsafe. But you must be able to figure out that YYZ has a higher level of safety overall. And if one is in an emergency situation where fuel is critical, one would prefer the long parallel runways as the odds are significantly better that a usable runway will still be available in case a runway gets blocked.

Lets face it, this discussion of which airport is safer is meaningless. The bottom line is that they had plenty of fuel, and assuming, they were aware of their fuel quantity(proper indication), the question is....did they fake an emergency to get into YTZ for convenience.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5930
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by digits_ »

trey kule wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:11 am Digits…
. Which would make it an emergency if they tried YYZ first and couldn't make it in there and then landed in YTZ with an anticipated less than final reserve fuel.
I don’t think you may really understand the purpose of reserve fuel,( as so many others don’t as well.)

The reserve fuel is determined prior to departure and must meet the minimums required.

Once you are in the air the fuel is there for you to use. There is no minimum landing requirement.
I think with even a smidge of common sense most pilots can reason that the fuel is therefor you in case things don’t go quite as planned.

As to declaring an emergency when you have both fuel to an alternate and 45 mins, seems a bit odd, but some SOPs may specify it. Not really even Bingo fuel for this crew.

Fuel planning seems to be a weak point in training.
I'm just quoting ICAO regulations/recommendations: https://www.ifalpa.org/media/2007/13ats ... y-fuel.pdf
4.3.7.2.3 The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting MAYDAY, MAYDAY, 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.
Note 1.— The planned final reserve fuel refers to the value calculated in 4.3.6.3 e) 1) or 2) and is the minimum amount of fuel
required upon landing at any aerodrome.
Note 2.— The words “MAYDAY FUEL” describe the nature of the distress conditions as required in Annex 10, Volume II,
5.3.2.1, b) 3.
Are you saying you would *not* declare an emergency if you're expecting to land without final reserve fuel? Note I said final reserve fuel, not alternate + 45 minutes. Final reserve is the 45 / 30 minutes, depending on what rules you operate under.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by trey kule »

Nope.
What I was stating is that it is not any sort of regulatory issue to land with less than your planned reserve. Declaring an emergency is a bit of a sidetrack.
Nowadays pilots are so afraid of running afoul of TC, common sense goes out the window.

As to this particular situation, if YYZ, (and fuel was an issue) Was available, I wouldnt have even bothered with the island, but I dont think from what I read here fuel was an issue, nor, if I understand the fuel burn to yyz, was an emergency needed to be declared unless there was an unanticipated delay.

Looks to me like a clever crew was trying to avoid the costs of diverting to Pearson, but unfortunately, this is the internet where we just might not have all the facts.
I was involved years ago where a pilot declared an emergency that turned out to be for convenience, and both he and the company took a big hit.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
goingmissed
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:06 am

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by goingmissed »

pelmet wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:34 am
goingmissed wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:28 pm
pelmet wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:03 pm I would think YYZ would be safer. Parallel long runways, ILS, better lighting, CFR, perhaps ATC control, etc. About one minute longer on a flight from YUL, although a min flap landing might save fuel which can't be done so easy on a short runway. Not so convenient though.
Safer? If the island was unsafe for a Q400 operating normally, it wouldn't be used as a commercial airport with Q400s.
Nowhere did I say that YTZ is unsafe. But you must be able to figure out that YYZ has a higher level of safety overall. And if one is in an emergency situation where fuel is critical, one would prefer the long parallel runways as the odds are significantly better that a usable runway will still be available in case a runway gets blocked.

Lets face it, this discussion of which airport is safer is meaningless. The bottom line is that they had plenty of fuel, and assuming, they were aware of their fuel quantity(proper indication), the question is....did they fake an emergency to get into YTZ for convenience.
You're making one argument and then jumping to another conclusion.

Sure, YYZ can be argued to be the safer airport, that is true.

Your other point that they faked an emergency is a false assumption. I said it before assuming that my point would be inferred, but since it seems to have flown past several of the commenters here, let me explain what flying at an airline is like.

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. Just because you will have enough fuel to land at an airport without fear of your engines running dry does not make it a "fake emergency."

If you have any further questions, I will be glad to help you.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by photofly »

goingmissed wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:50 am
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?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5930
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by digits_ »

goingmissed wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:50 am 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
goingmissed
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:06 am

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by goingmissed »

photofly wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:08 am
goingmissed wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:50 am
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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
goingmissed
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:06 am

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by goingmissed »

digits_ wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:44 am
goingmissed wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:50 am 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by photofly »

goingmissed wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:45 am
photofly wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:08 am
goingmissed wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:50 am
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?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5930
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by digits_ »

photofly wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:19 pm 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by photofly »

digits_ wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:31 pm 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
DHC-1 Jockey
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:41 pm

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by photofly »

DHC-1 Jockey wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:23 pm 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5930
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by digits_ »

photofly wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:53 pm
DHC-1 Jockey wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:23 pm 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5930
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by 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...
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by photofly »

digits_ wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:14 pm
photofly wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:53 pm
DHC-1 Jockey wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:23 pm 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?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5930
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by digits_ »

photofly wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:12 pm
digits_ wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:14 pm
photofly wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:53 pm
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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by pelmet »

photofly wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:53 pm
DHC-1 Jockey wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:23 pm 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

Post by photofly »

pelmet wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:53 pm
photofly wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:53 pm
DHC-1 Jockey wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:23 pm 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):
goingmissed wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:45 am
photofly wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:08 am
goingmissed wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:50 am
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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”