Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

[digits_]

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.

That's not what I wrote.

If the rule is that you have to declare an emergency if you expect to land with less than 45 minutes of fuel, and you *know* if you fly to CYYZ you will land with 50 minutes of fuel on board, then the rule that says 'you have to declare an emergency if you are expecting to land with less than 45 minutes on board' does not allow you to declare an emergency when you expect to land with 50 minutes of fuel on board.

It doesn't explicitly prohibit it either. But it definitely doesn't specifically allow it.

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.

I'm sure the catchall 'don't be reckless' would apply. And in those situations it might actually make sense.

As I suggested in my earlier posts. At 2am, fly to CYYZ, when close to YTZ, burn off fuel by circling around, declare min fuel emergency and land in YTZ. Do that every night for a week. I'm sure you'll get your answer.

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.

Going off memory here, but most fuel emergencies I've read about are caused by diversion after diversion due to closed airports, crappy weather, fuel leaks or broken airplane parts.

None of those are intentional.

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?

(assuming this actually happened)
What they did wrong was take a gamble to fly to a likely closed airport, potentially falsely claim they didn't have enough fuel to make it to YYZ and declare an emergency out of convenience to avoid a landing fee in CYTZ.

Following your example. If they took of VFR from Montreal to CYTZ (no alternate), had exactly enough fuel to land in CYTZ, but not enough to divert to YYZ, and they expected to land at 2 am. Would you have been ok with them declaring a fuel emergency in CYTZ to land?

[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.

That's not what I wrote.

If the rule is that you have to declare an emergency if you expect to land with less than 45 minutes of fuel, and you *know* if you fly to CYYZ you will land with 50 minutes of fuel on board, then the rule that says 'you have to declare an emergency if you are expecting to land with less than 45 minutes on board' does not allow you to declare an emergency when you expect to land with 50 minutes of fuel on board.

It doesn't explicitly prohibit it either. But it definitely doesn't specifically allow it.

So the question is, at the time they declared the fuel emergency, was it discretionary, or because they realize that the landing at YTZ would be with less than their reserve fuel? If the former, then it's a swizz. If the latter, it's iegit.

As I suggested in my earlier posts. At 2am, fly to CYYZ, when close to YTZ, burn off fuel by circling around, declare min fuel emergency and land in YTZ. Do that every night for a week. I'm sure you'll get your answer.

But they didn't circle to burn off fuel. The track showed they made a straight-in approach. So I'm not sure how that's relevant.

Going off memory here, but most fuel emergencies I've read about are caused by diversion after diversion due to closed airports, crappy weather, fuel leaks or broken airplane parts.

And in fact in this flight too they were diverting, due to closed airports and crappy weather. Are you construing a rule that says you are required to choose your diversion destination in those circumstances to avoid a fuel emergency and if you have one en route then your decision-making is punishable?

What they did wrong was take a gamble to fly to a likely closed airport, potentially falsely claim they didn't have enough fuel to make it to YYZ and declare an emergency out of convenience to avoid a landing fee in CYTZ.

Flying to beat the curfew isn't an unreasonable gamble. It happens to Porter often, and if they don't have a fuel emergency they simply divert to YYZ on the nights they don't make it. Nor has anyone, ever, as you suggest, claimed the didn't have enough fuel to make it to YYZ. They very clearly did have enough fuel to make it to YYZ. But again, that's irrelevant. Having or not having enough fuel to make it to YYZ wasn't among the criteria for declaring a fuel emergency.

Following your example. If they took of VFR from Montreal to CYTZ (no alternate), had exactly enough fuel to land in CYTZ, but not enough to divert to YYZ, and they expected to land at 2 am. Would you have been ok with them declaring a fuel emergency in CYTZ to land?

It's irrelevant whether I'd be ok with that, because that's not what the crew did. They diverted with enough fuel to land at either YTZ or YYZ. But also happened to arrive with an amount of fuel that according to the rules allowed them to land at YTZ during night hours. So they did. I"m really not seeing the problem.

[digits_]

So the question is, at the time they declared the fuel emergency, was it discretionary, or because they realize that the landing at YTZ would be with less than their reserve fuel? If the former, then it's a swizz. If the latter, it's iegit.

No, the question is, "when they declared the fuel emergency, could they land in YYZ withtheir reserve fuel. If yes, there was no need for an emergency."

And in fact in this flight too they were diverting, due to closed airports and crappy weather. Are you construing a rule that says you are required to choose your diversion destination in those circumstances to avoid a fuel emergency and if you have one en route then your decision-making is punishable?

I would really think and hope that pilots that fly around try to avoid emergencies.

Flying to beat the curfew isn't an unreasonable gamble. It happens to Porter often, and if they don't have a fuel emergency they simply divert to YYZ on the nights they don't make it. Nor has anyone, ever, as you suggest, claimed the didn't have enough fuel to make it to YYZ. They very clearly did have enough fuel to make it to YYZ. But again, that's irrelevant. Having or not having enough fuel to make it to YYZ wasn't among the criteria for declaring a fuel emergency.

I doubt if there was a fuel emergency in this case.

Why is having enough fuel to make it to YYZ not part of the criteria? It's the crux of the matter to determine if the emergency call was genuine.

They obviously had enough fuel to land in YTZ with more than minimum reserve, because they did. So that couldn't have created the emergency (barring any technical fuel indication issues etc)

Following your example. If they took of VFR from Montreal to CYTZ (no alternate), had exactly enough fuel to land in CYTZ, but not enough to divert to YYZ, and they expected to land at 2 am. Would you have been ok with them declaring a fuel emergency in CYTZ to land?

It's irrelevant whether I'd be ok with that, because that's not what the crew did. They diverted with enough fuel to land at either YTZ or YYZ. But also happened to arrive with an amount of fuel that according to the rules allowed them to land at YTZ during night hours. So they did. I"m really not seeing the problem.

With one hour of fuel on board on approach to CYTZ, can you divert and land in CYYZ with 45 minutes in the tanks?
If yes: no emergency is required (or appropriate IMO)
If no: emergency is required.

[photofly]

And in fact in this flight too they were diverting, due to closed airports and crappy weather. Are you construing a rule that says you are required to choose your diversion destination in those circumstances to avoid a fuel emergency and if you have one en route then your decision-making is punishable?

I would really think and hope that pilots that fly around try to avoid emergencies.

But you want to have it both ways. This wasn't an emergency, but on the other hand it should have been avoided because it was an emergency...?

Flying to beat the curfew isn't an unreasonable gamble. It happens to Porter often, and if they don't have a fuel emergency they simply divert to YYZ on the nights they don't make it. Nor has anyone, ever, as you suggest, claimed the didn't have enough fuel to make it to YYZ. They very clearly did have enough fuel to make it to YYZ. But again, that's irrelevant. Having or not having enough fuel to make it to YYZ wasn't among the criteria for declaring a fuel emergency.

I doubt if there was a fuel emergency in this case.

Your opinion isn't evidence of anything other than your opinion. It becomes neither more or less likely that there was a fuel emergency because of your doubt.

Why is having enough fuel to make it to YYZ not part of the criteria? It's the crux of the matter to determine if the emergency call was genuine.

The crux is whether they had enough fuel to make it to YYZ with the planned final reserve remaining. Nobody doubts they had enough fuel to make it before the tanks ran dry, which is what you appear to suggest they were claiming might happen.

They obviously had enough fuel to land in YTZ with more than minimum reserve, because they did. So that couldn't have created the emergency (barring any technical fuel indication issues etc)
...
With one hour of fuel on board on approach to CYTZ, can you divert and land in CYYZ with 45 minutes in the tanks?
If yes: no emergency is required (or appropriate IMO)
If no: emergency is required.

Why do you assume that the "the planned final reserve fuel", an expectation of landing below which would require a fuel emergency to be declared, was 45 minutes?

[digits_]

And in fact in this flight too they were diverting, due to closed airports and crappy weather. Are you construing a rule that says you are required to choose your diversion destination in those circumstances to avoid a fuel emergency and if you have one en route then your decision-making is punishable?

I would really think and hope that pilots that fly around try to avoid emergencies.

But you want to have it both ways. This wasn't an emergency, but on the other hand it should have been avoided because it was an emergency...?

You've lost me here.

Flying to beat the curfew isn't an unreasonable gamble. It happens to Porter often, and if they don't have a fuel emergency they simply divert to YYZ on the nights they don't make it. Nor has anyone, ever, as you suggest, claimed the didn't have enough fuel to make it to YYZ. They very clearly did have enough fuel to make it to YYZ. But again, that's irrelevant. Having or not having enough fuel to make it to YYZ wasn't among the criteria for declaring a fuel emergency.

I doubt if there was a fuel emergency in this case.

Your opinion isn't evidence of anything other than your opinion. It becomes neither more or less likely that there was a fuel emergency because of your doubt.

I never claimed it was. Since neither of us was on both the aircraft, certain assumpetions are to made to discuss the what-ifs. I think I have made my assumptions very clear to describe which situation I was discussing. If you're replying to my quotes, it's reasonable of me to assume we're talking about the same situation.

If not, kindly describe the situation you would like to discuss.

Why is having enough fuel to make it to YYZ not part of the criteria? It's the crux of the matter to determine if the emergency call was genuine.

The crux is whether they had enough fuel to make it to YYZ with the planned final reserve remaining. Nobody doubts they had enough fuel to make it before the tanks ran dry, which is what you appear to suggest they were claiming might happen.

Agreed with the first part. Completely wrong on the second part. I've always talked about minimum reserve. I have never mentioned nor wanted to imply they would run tanks dry.

They obviously had enough fuel to land in YTZ with more than minimum reserve, because they did. So that couldn't have created the emergency (barring any technical fuel indication issues etc)
...
With one hour of fuel on board on approach to CYTZ, can you divert and land in CYYZ with 45 minutes in the tanks?
If yes: no emergency is required (or appropriate IMO)
If no: emergency is required.

Why do you assume that the "the planned final reserve fuel", an expectation of landing below which would require a fuel emergency to be declared, was 45 minutes?

Isn't that the industry standard for IFR prop planes?

[photofly]

Agreed with the first part. Completely wrong on the second part. I've always talked about minimum reserve. I have never mentioned nor wanted to imply they would run tanks dry.

I'm going off your statement of wrongdoing, here:

What they did wrong was take a gamble to fly to a likely closed airport, potentially falsely claim they didn't have enough fuel to make it to YYZ and declare an emergency out of convenience to avoid a landing fee in CYTZ.

I can't interpret that any other way than as an accusation making a false claim of tanks-dry before YYZ. Of course there was no such claim.
In any event, the fuel to YYZ and fuel to YTZ is near-enough the same, so regardless of which was the destination, if they were in a fuel emergency en route to one they were going to be in a fuel emergency on the way to the other.

They obviously had enough fuel to land in YTZ with more than minimum reserve, because they did. So that couldn't have created the emergency (barring any technical fuel indication issues etc)
...
With one hour of fuel on board on approach to CYTZ, can you divert and land in CYYZ with 45 minutes in the tanks?
If yes: no emergency is required (or appropriate IMO)
If no: emergency is required.

Why do you assume that the "the planned final reserve fuel", an expectation of landing below which would require a fuel emergency to be declared, was 45 minutes?

Isn't that the industry standard for IFR prop planes?

You're thinking of 602.88 (and see also 705.25) which sets a minimum total fuel for departure and for changing a destination. There's nothing in the regulations to make it an operational limit for declaring a fuel emergency. I have no idea what the "actual planned final reserve fuel" amount for the flight was. I don't think you do either. The flight crew did, when they declared a fuel emergency, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

[digits_]

Agreed with the first part. Completely wrong on the second part. I've always talked about minimum reserve. I have never mentioned nor wanted to imply they would run tanks dry.

I'm going off your statement of wrongdoing, here:

What they did wrong was take a gamble to fly to a likely closed airport, potentially falsely claim they didn't have enough fuel to make it to YYZ and declare an emergency out of convenience to avoid a landing fee in CYTZ.

I can't interpret that any other way than as an accusation making a false claim of tanks-dry before YYZ. Of course there was no such claim.
In any event, the fuel to YYZ and fuel to YTZ is near-enough the same, so regardless of which was the destination, if they were in a fuel emergency en route to one they were going to be in a fuel emergency on the way to the other.

Assuming they were flying direct, then yes.

If YTZ was still open, do you think they would have declared an emergency? Based on my assumed 45 final reserve minimum, they fly to CYTZ, it's closed, they estimate diverting to CYYZ would cause them to dip into the final reserve, so declare an emergency, and might as well land in CYTZ then. I think that would be the explanation in that case. Probably

Why do you assume that the "the planned final reserve fuel", an expectation of landing below which would require a fuel emergency to be declared, was 45 minutes?

Isn't that the industry standard for IFR prop planes?

You're thinking of 602.88 (and see also 705.25) which sets a minimum total fuel for departure and for changing a destination. There's nothing in the regulations to make it an operational limit for declaring a fuel emergency. I have no idea what the "actual planned final reserve fuel" amount for the flight was. I don't think you do either. The flight crew did, when they declared a fuel emergency, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

I have never worked for a company that uses any other definition than the 45/30 minutes for 'final reserve'. Nor do I know of any company that uses higher numbers for that. I suppose it's possible.

You can of course take more fuel, but that would not be called 'final reserve'. That's something like 'extra' or 'en route reserve', or whatever label you want to give it.

[photofly]

If YTZ was still open, do you think they would have declared an emergency?

I'm supposing they followed some hard-and-fast rules about what constitutes a fuel emergency and when one has to be declared. If YTZ being open had meant that a fuel emergency wasn't mandated, then no, they wouldn't.

Based on my assumed 45 final reserve minimum, they fly to CYTZ, it's closed, they estimate diverting to CYYZ would cause them to dip into the final reserve, so declare an emergency, and might as well land in CYTZ then. I think that would be the explanation in that case.

I think that's what I suggested a few posts ago. I still don't see that's illegitimate. Happily convenient, but not necessarily wrong.

If the Port Authority insists on bumping the landing fee by a factor of one hundred depending on whether you touch down at 22:59:59 or 23:00:00 then they should expect pilots to make the most of any happy loopholes that are available.

[pelmet]

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.

That is a good start. Next question is....

What is the time in minutes used for final reserve fuel.

[Mick G]

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.

I'm with you in this one. Too many armchair critics on here, imagine the lambasting the crew would get if something had happened. An abundance of caution is always the better way to go, especially dealing with passenger operations

[pelmet]

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.

I'm with you in this one. Too many armchair critics on here, imagine the lambasting the crew would get if something had happened. An abundance of caution is always the better way to go, especially dealing with passenger operations

Forgot about this thread. I think Photofly is still looking up my question from two posts ago.

[photofly]

Who, me? No - I thought it was a rhetorical question. I have no idea. Happy to be schooled by my betters, though.

[pelmet]

Who, me? No - I thought it was a rhetorical question. I have no idea. Happy to be schooled by my betters, though.

I have seen you look up very obscure regulatory info multiple times from multiple regulatory agencies. Things that were impressive to be able to find so quickly. I figured you would have it at your fingertips.

I have 45 minutes in my mind’s fading memory but don’t want to commit to that without confirmation.

[photofly]

There are a bunch of regulatory minimum fuel requirements at the outset of a flight, the headline one is something like flight to destination, approach to minimums, diversion to an alternate, another approach to minimums, and a further 45 minutes of flight. But there are others too. What I don't know is if that (those) limits are the ones referred to as "planned final reserve fuel." I don't know who's doing the planning, for a start.

And the interpretation of that limit in terms of litres of fuel could be tricky: wouldn't it depend on whether you were already at your diversion destination or not (because then you'd not still be expected to have the addition amount of fuel to go to your alternate)?

So my guess would be that each operator would have a more specific way to decide towards the end of a flight what "planned final reserve fuel" was, and whether they'd be planning to land with less than that amount. But you'd probably know better than me.