Fuel Emergency due to Change in Flight Plan requirements

[pelmet]

It is interesting how a flight planning change enroute, I assume due to a forecast change, turns a normal flight into one with an emergency at a moment's notice.....

C-GWEQ, a de Havilland DHC-8-402 operated by WestJet Encore Ltd., was operating flight
WEW3204 from Winnipeg/James Armstrong Richardson Intl. (CYWG), MB, to Thunder Bay
(CYQT), ON, with 4 crew members and 75 passengers on board. On arrival into CYQT, the crew
attempted 2 approaches but were unable to land due to high winds and turbulence. After the
second landing attempt, the flight returned to CYWG. While enroute to CYWG, the flight crew
slowed the aircraft to long-range cruise power settings. At that power setting, the FMS indicated
that the aircraft would land in CYWG with a fuel amount above the minimum reserve fuel of 1435
pounds. Midway through the return flight to CYWG, the crew received a revised flight plan from the
operator's dispatch indicating an increase of the minimum reserve fuel to 1535 pounds. The crew
requested ATC for a landing on Runway 31, instead of the active Runway 36, as it was closer.
While on approach for Runway 31, the fuel level of the aircraft dropped below the revised minimum
reserve fuel, and the flight crew declared an emergency. The aircraft landed Runway 31
uneventfully and ARFF followed the aircraft as it taxied normally to the gate. The fuel upon
touchdown was 1460 pounds.

[photofly]

It may be somewhat peripheral to the rules for this flight (and no comment is intended about this flight either) but the general reserve fuel requirements apply not just to your original destination but to any changes in flight too:

602.88 (1) This section does not apply in respect of any glider, balloon or ultra-light aeroplane.

(2) No pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall commence a flight or, during flight, change the destination aerodrome set out in the flight plan or flight itinerary, unless the aircraft carries sufficient fuel to ensure compliance with subsections (3) to (5)…

(emphasis added)

[digits_]

I'm wondering what algorithms they used that would affect the final reserve fuel calculations if the destination changed. Are they operating with a fixed height to calculate the required 45 minutes?

Nice CAR reference by the way. I wasn't aware the bolded part was actually in the regulations.

[YC87DRVR]

Declared an emergency for being short 75 lbs of fuel….?????

[Crewbunk]

Declared an emergency for being short 75 lbs of fuel….?????

Imagine if they hadn’t declared an emergency, and ATC made them go around. It would get bad very quickly.

While declaring an emergency may seem silly for 75 lbs of fuel, you are making sure it stays at only 75 lbs, and, it gives ATC the power to give you priority handling, which in this case, would be essential.

[YC87DRVR]

Declared an emergency for being short 75 lbs of fuel….?????

Imagine if they hadn’t declared an emergency, and ATC made them go around. It would get bad very quickly.

While declaring an emergency may seem silly for 75 lbs of fuel, you are making sure it stays at only 75 lbs, and, it gives ATC the power to give you priority handling, which in this case, would be essential.

Yes, that’s why they have a reserve for a go around, etc. They didn’t have zero fuel left, they had 75 lbs left than their planned reserved.

[tbayav8er]

Declared an emergency for being short 75 lbs of fuel….?????

Imagine if they hadn’t declared an emergency, and ATC made them go around. It would get bad very quickly.

While declaring an emergency may seem silly for 75 lbs of fuel, you are making sure it stays at only 75 lbs, and, it gives ATC the power to give you priority handling, which in this case, would be essential.

Yes, that’s why they have a reserve for a go around, etc. They didn’t have zero fuel left, they had 75 lbs left than their planned reserved.

So how far below 45 mins of fuel do you go before declaring an emergency? In my mind, it's a hard limit. 45 mins of fuel is a mayday (for turboprops). Doesn't matter if it's 10 lbs under. Just my opinion.

[digits_]

Declared an emergency for being short 75 lbs of fuel….?????

Of course, that's what you're supposed to do. If anything, they were a little late declaring the emergency. ICAO says you're supposed to declare it when you expect you will touch the final reserve fuel.

[5degrees]

Declared an emergency for being short 75 lbs of fuel….?????

Imagine if they hadn’t declared an emergency, and ATC made them go around. It would get bad very quickly.

While declaring an emergency may seem silly for 75 lbs of fuel, you are making sure it stays at only 75 lbs, and, it gives ATC the power to give you priority handling, which in this case, would be essential.

Yes, that’s why they have a reserve for a go around, etc. They didn’t have zero fuel left, they had 75 lbs left than their planned reserved.

Legally they have to declare a Mayday as per their COM.

[ZBBYLW]

If you are into your reserve it's an emergency full stop.

[Crewbunk]

If you are into your reserve it's an emergency full stop.

Where I fly, even if your forecast arrival fuel is below reserve an emergency must be declared even if at the time, you are well above.

[iflyforpie]

Declared an emergency for being short 75 lbs of fuel….?????

Succumbing to macho BS like this is why pilots get in trouble.

Damn right I’m declaring an emergency. I’ll do it for 1lb of fuel.

Who am I trying to impress? Who are you trying to impress? Is there some sort of cost to declaring an emergency other than perceived damage to fragile ego?

This is 2023.

[CpnCrunch]

It may be somewhat peripheral to the rules for this flight (and no comment is intended about this flight either) but the general reserve fuel requirements apply not just to your original destination but to any changes in flight too:

602.88 (1) This section does not apply in respect of any glider, balloon or ultra-light aeroplane.

(2) No pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall commence a flight or, during flight, change the destination aerodrome set out in the flight plan or flight itinerary, unless the aircraft carries sufficient fuel to ensure compliance with subsections (3) to (5)…

(emphasis added)

It depends what their alternate was. If it was YWG then that sentence wouldn't apply.

But, I think this is perhaps the airline's "final reserve fuel" rather than anything mentioned in the CARs.

[digits_]

It may be somewhat peripheral to the rules for this flight (and no comment is intended about this flight either) but the general reserve fuel requirements apply not just to your original destination but to any changes in flight too:

602.88 (1) This section does not apply in respect of any glider, balloon or ultra-light aeroplane.

(2) No pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall commence a flight or, during flight, change the destination aerodrome set out in the flight plan or flight itinerary, unless the aircraft carries sufficient fuel to ensure compliance with subsections (3) to (5)…

(emphasis added)

It depends what their alternate was. If it was YWG then that sentence wouldn't apply.

But, I think this is perhaps the airline's "final reserve fuel" rather than anything mentioned in the CARs.

They would still have to meet the 45 minutes after their alternate as per car 602.88. Would they have received a reviewed flight plan if YWG was their planned alternate?

[goldeneagle]

I can understand fuel requirements changing if the destination changes, but that's not what the report said.

Report says the reserve requirement started at 1435, then changed to 1535. Did something else change to make the airplane suddenly need an extra 100lb of fuel in reserve ? Again, this was not the fuel required to destination, it was the reserve after destination they changed. I'm curious now what would cause the reserve requirement to change.

[digits_]

I can understand fuel requirements changing if the destination changes, but that's not what the report said.

Report says the reserve requirement started at 1435, then changed to 1535. Did something else change to make the airplane suddenly need an extra 100lb of fuel in reserve ? Again, this was not the fuel required to destination, it was the reserve after destination they changed. I'm curious now what would cause the reserve requirement to change.

I was a bit puzzled by that as well. If CYWG was not the original alternate, then it makes sense a new flight plan was calculated using the latest weather/pressure info, and possible a new elevation to calculate the 45 minute of flying, and the numbers could easily change. If YWG was the original alternate then it would be even more of a mystery.

[tsgarp]

Imagine if they hadn’t declared an emergency, and ATC made them go around. It would get bad very quickly.

While declaring an emergency may seem silly for 75 lbs of fuel, you are making sure it stays at only 75 lbs, and, it gives ATC the power to give you priority handling, which in this case, would be essential.

Yes, that’s why they have a reserve for a go around, etc. They didn’t have zero fuel left, they had 75 lbs left than their planned reserved.

So how far below 45 mins of fuel do you go before declaring an emergency? In my mind, it's a hard limit. 45 mins of fuel is a mayday (for turboprops). Doesn't matter if it's 10 lbs under. Just my opinion.

I would suggest “Minimum Fuel Advisory” as per here: https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/refer ... -001#s4_14. Reserve the use of MAYDAY for situations where you are on fire or can’t make an airport. If you are dead set on declaring an emergency, this situation only merits a PAN PAN.

[digits_]

Yes, that’s why they have a reserve for a go around, etc. They didn’t have zero fuel left, they had 75 lbs left than their planned reserved.

So how far below 45 mins of fuel do you go before declaring an emergency? In my mind, it's a hard limit. 45 mins of fuel is a mayday (for turboprops). Doesn't matter if it's 10 lbs under. Just my opinion.

I would suggest “Minimum Fuel Advisory” as per here: https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/refer ... -001#s4_14. Reserve the use of MAYDAY for situations where you are on fire or can’t make an airport. If you are dead set on declaring an emergency, this situation only merits a PAN PAN.

Wrong.

They were passed the point of minimum fuel advisory.
https://www.ifalpa.org/media/2007/13ats ... y-fuel.pdf

4.3.7.2.2 The pilot-in-command shall advise ATC of a minimum fuel state by declaring MINIMUM FUEL when, having
committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may
result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel.

Translation: "If you give me that hold or that extra delaying waypoint, I'm going to have to declare a fuel emergency because I'll be landing with less than minimum reserve fuel.

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."

Translation: "I will now be landing with less than final reserve fuel"

Note the 'shall'.

[pelmet]

It is interesting. Because the report uses the term Reserve Fuel instead of term Final Reserve Fuel in the regulation.

If the report is referring to the Final Reserve Fuel, I wonder why that would change.

Any thoughts?

[digits_]

It is interesting. Because the report uses the term Reserve Fuel instead of term Final Reserve Fuel in the regulation.

If the report is referring to the Final Reserve Fuel, I wonder why that would change.

Any thoughts?

The report says 'minimum reserve fuel'. I think it's safe to assume it's a synonym of 'final reserve fuel'.

[tsgarp]

They were passed the point of minimum fuel advisory.
https://www.ifalpa.org/media/2007/13ats ... y-fuel.pdf

I rather doubt that.

From your ref:

Fuel emergency: Declare a fuel emergency when the calculated fuel on landing at the nearest suitable aerodrome, where a safe landing can be made, will be less than the planned final reserve fuel (in accordance with 4.3.7.2.3)

Note the “nearest suitable aerodrome” provision. Kenora, Dryden and a few other aerodromes are en route that can handle a Dash 8. It’s not an emergency if you can land short and get fuel.

Also, your reference is from 2012 and ICAO (it does not have regulatory power in Canada)

My reference is from 2021 and from Transport Canada (which has regulatory power in Canada). It states:

Minimum Fuel: An expression used to inform ATC that an aircraft's fuel supply has reached a state that is sufficient to reach destination, provided that unexpected delays are not encountered.
Fr: carburant minimum“

[tsgarp]

It may be somewhat peripheral to the rules for this flight (and no comment is intended about this flight either) but the general reserve fuel requirements apply not just to your original destination but to any changes in flight too:

(emphasis added)

It depends what their alternate was. If it was YWG then that sentence wouldn't apply.

But, I think this is perhaps the airline's "final reserve fuel" rather than anything mentioned in the CARs.

They would still have to meet the 45 minutes after their alternate as per car 602.88. Would they have received a reviewed flight plan if YWG was their planned alternate?

Not quite. 602.88 says you have to take off with enough fuel to get the the filed alternate and then fly for 45 minutes. If doesn’t say you have to land with enough fuel to get to your filed alternate and then fly for 45 minutes.

[digits_]

They were passed the point of minimum fuel advisory.
https://www.ifalpa.org/media/2007/13ats ... y-fuel.pdf

I rather doubt that.

From your ref:

Fuel emergency: Declare a fuel emergency when the calculated fuel on landing at the nearest suitable aerodrome, where a safe landing can be made, will be less than the planned final reserve fuel (in accordance with 4.3.7.2.3)

The report says:
"
While on approach for Runway 31, the fuel level of the aircraft dropped below the revised minimum
reserve fuel, and the flight crew declared an emergency.
"

They waited until they were *below* final reserve fuel before declaring the emergency. They should have done it earlier once they realized they were going to dip into it. Perhaps they were a bit weary of doing so, to avoid avcanada judgement

Note the “nearest suitable aerodrome” provision. Kenora, Dryden and a few other aerodromes are en route that can handle a Dash 8. It’s not an emergency if you can land short and get fuel.

Fair enough. Yet if you find yourself on final approach in Winnipeg, I would say all the other available options are out of the window and it does become an emergency.

Also, your reference is from 2012 and ICAO (it does not have regulatory power in Canada)

My reference is from 2021 and from Transport Canada (which has regulatory power in Canada). It states:

Minimum Fuel: An expression used to inform ATC that an aircraft's fuel supply has reached a state that is sufficient to reach destination, provided that unexpected delays are not encountered.
Fr: carburant minimum“

Your reference is perfectly in line with the ICAO reference I quoted earlier.

[digits_]

It depends what their alternate was. If it was YWG then that sentence wouldn't apply.

But, I think this is perhaps the airline's "final reserve fuel" rather than anything mentioned in the CARs.

They would still have to meet the 45 minutes after their alternate as per car 602.88. Would they have received a reviewed flight plan if YWG was their planned alternate?

Not quite. 602.88 says you have to take off with enough fuel to get the the filed alternate and then fly for 45 minutes. If doesn’t say you have to land with enough fuel to get to your filed alternate and then fly for 45 minutes.

I never claimed otherwise.

602.88 still applies, wether CYWG was their original alternate or not. Either way they would need to have at least 45 minutes of fuel in the tanks upon landing in CYWG. They anticipated they wouldn't, so they declared an emergency.

[tsgarp]

The report says:
"
While on approach for Runway 31, the fuel level of the aircraft dropped below the revised minimum
reserve fuel, and the flight crew declared an emergency.
"

They waited until they were *below* final reserve fuel before declaring the emergency. They should have done it earlier once they realized they were going to dip into it. Perhaps they were a bit weary of doing so, to avoid avcanada judgement

The FMS in the Dash is very good at giving you your landing fuel. This crew knew what their landing fuel was going to be (I.e. below mindiv) from a very early point, likely once they leveled off out of CYQT. They then proceeded to overfly several suitable aerodromes where they could have landed and got fuel knowingly putting themselves into an ‘Emegency’. I’m running on the assumption that these guys are fairly well trained and bright, and wouldn’t knowingly, willingly do something that is going to put them into an ‘Emergency’ situation. Hence, this is not an ‘Emergency’, even though the COM (which you should follow) will tell you to declare one.

Also, your reference is from 2012 and ICAO (it does not have regulatory power in Canada)

My reference is from 2021 and from Transport Canada (which has regulatory power in Canada). It states:

Minimum Fuel: An expression used to inform ATC that an aircraft's fuel supply has reached a state that is sufficient to reach destination, provided that unexpected delays are not encountered.
Fr: carburant minimum“

Your reference is perfectly in line with the ICAO reference I quoted earlier.

No. The TC reference is quite clear that if you have the ability to make a suitable aerodrome with fuel in the tanks it’s a minimum fuel advisory. The TC reference is from the Canadian regulatory body and has regulatory force. Your ref has no regulatory force in Canada, has application criteria which are inconsistent with Canadian regulations, is 10 years out of date and is not from an official ICAO source.