Is One Hour of Fuel Remaining Over Toronto a Fuel Emergency

[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?

[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