Fuel Emergency due to Change in Flight Plan requirements

[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.

[tsgarp]

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.

If YWG was the alternate filed at the time of T/O, then IAW 602.88, there is no legal requirement to land with 45 minutes of fuel in the tanks. The point of the regulatory requirement for the 45 minutes of extra fuel at T/O is to provide a cushion for unknown factors. If something comes up during the flight that requires you to burn that fuel,(holds, winds), and you land with less than 45 minutes of fuel in the tanks, then that is fine from a regulatory standpoint.

[digits_]

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.

You seem to think that 1 liter on board when landing is sufficient fuel. It's not. While not explicitly defined, it is strongly implied in other places that "sufficient to reach destination" means "without touching final reserve fuel"

Here's a navcanada document explaining the same stuff as I linked to in the ICAO document.

https://www.navcanada.ca/en/vfr-phraseology.pdf

Page 47.

Anticipating to use final reserve fuel = mayday

It might not be as regulatory airtight as hoped, but since it's issued by navcanada, I hope you'll agree ATC expects you to declare an emergency in this case.

[karmutzen]

That 45 minutes reserve is a planning figure for departure, not a landing minimum. A landing minimum may be specified in an ops manual, but it is not regulatory. 45 minutes is a dinosaur from the days where you guessed the winds and didn't know your ground speed, or fuel or fuel burn with any accuracy. Could probably cut it to 20 minutes like a helicopter these days and be fine. Down to 1 litre? Better declare an emergency to get straight in priority instead of the "no undue delay".

[digits_]

That 45 minutes reserve is a planning figure for departure, not a landing minimum. A landing minimum may be specified in an ops manual, but it is not regulatory. 45 minutes is a dinosaur from the days where you guessed the winds and didn't know your ground speed, or fuel or fuel burn with any accuracy. Could probably cut it to 20 minutes like a helicopter these days and be fine. Down to 1 litre? Better declare an emergency to get straight in priority instead of the "no undue delay".

It might be legal but you're still expected to declare an emergency if you expect to land with less than 45 minutes of fuel. See references above.
And if your whole flight was as planned, and you land with less than 45 minutes of fuel, you likely did violate 602.88. You can't intentionally deviate from your flight plan and intentionally land with 10 minutes of fuel (assuming normal ops).

[cdnavater]

That 45 minutes reserve is a planning figure for departure, not a landing minimum. A landing minimum may be specified in an ops manual, but it is not regulatory. 45 minutes is a dinosaur from the days where you guessed the winds and didn't know your ground speed, or fuel or fuel burn with any accuracy. Could probably cut it to 20 minutes like a helicopter these days and be fine. Down to 1 litre? Better declare an emergency to get straight in priority instead of the "no undue delay".

So, you get to your alternate airport and you have to go around, you’d be comfortable using up 15 minutes of your twenty and landing with 5 minutes of fuel in an airliner?
I’ll tell you what, if they ever change it to twenty minutes, every flight I do will have 45 or it won’t go, guess I’m a dinosaur!

[pelmet]

That 45 minutes reserve is a planning figure for departure, not a landing minimum. A landing minimum may be specified in an ops manual, but it is not regulatory. 45 minutes is a dinosaur from the days where you guessed the winds and didn't know your ground speed, or fuel or fuel burn with any accuracy. Could probably cut it to 20 minutes like a helicopter these days and be fine. Down to 1 litre? Better declare an emergency to get straight in priority instead of the "no undue delay".

So, you get to your alternate airport and you have to go around, you’d be comfortable using up 15 minutes of your twenty and landing with 5 minutes of fuel in an airliner?
I’ll tell you what, if they ever change it to twenty minutes, every flight I do will have 45 or it won’t go, guess I’m a dinosaur!

What will you do if it changes to 30 minutes fuel with that being at a reduced power such as for a holding speed at 3000 feet above the airport?

[goldeneagle]

What will you do if it changes to 30 minutes fuel with that being at a reduced power such as for a holding speed at 3000 feet above the airport?

You mean kinda like this ?

======= from 602.88
4) An aircraft operated in IFR flight shall carry an amount of fuel that is sufficient to allow the aircraft

(a) in the case of a propeller-driven aeroplane,

(i) where an alternate aerodrome is specified in the flight plan or flight itinerary, to fly to and execute an approach and a missed approach at the destination aerodrome, to fly to and land at the alternate aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 45 minutes, or

(ii) where an alternate aerodrome is not specified in the flight plan or flight itinerary, to fly to and execute an approach and a missed approach at the destination aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 45 minutes; or

(b) in the case of a turbo-jet-powered aeroplane or a helicopter,

(i) where an alternate aerodrome is specified in the flight plan or flight itinerary, to fly to and execute an approach and a missed approach at the destination aerodrome, to fly to and land at the alternate aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 30 minutes, or

(ii) where an alternate aerodrome is not specified in the flight plan or flight itinerary, to fly to and execute an approach and a missed approach at the destination aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 30 minutes.
=======

ofc, me wonders if the folks worried about 45 min have ever flown a jet or helicopter...

[cdnavater]

What will you do if it changes to 30 minutes fuel with that being at a reduced power such as for a holding speed at 3000 feet above the airport?

You mean kinda like this ?

======= from 602.88
4) An aircraft operated in IFR flight shall carry an amount of fuel that is sufficient to allow the aircraft

(a) in the case of a propeller-driven aeroplane,

(i) where an alternate aerodrome is specified in the flight plan or flight itinerary, to fly to and execute an approach and a missed approach at the destination aerodrome, to fly to and land at the alternate aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 45 minutes, or

(ii) where an alternate aerodrome is not specified in the flight plan or flight itinerary, to fly to and execute an approach and a missed approach at the destination aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 45 minutes; or

(b) in the case of a turbo-jet-powered aeroplane or a helicopter,

(i) where an alternate aerodrome is specified in the flight plan or flight itinerary, to fly to and execute an approach and a missed approach at the destination aerodrome, to fly to and land at the alternate aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 30 minutes, or

(ii) where an alternate aerodrome is not specified in the flight plan or flight itinerary, to fly to and execute an approach and a missed approach at the destination aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 30 minutes.
=======

ofc, me wonders if the folks worried about 45 min have ever flown a jet or helicopter...

You are correct, again, I’ve probably forgot more than I care to admit, 30 mins in a CRJ 200 is 1000 lbs at 3000 above the airport, the 900 is 1500, I’ve never landed with less than 2000 lbs in the tanks personally, I always get some extra and fortunately my company plans for many contingencies, foreseen and unforeseen.
I don’t know many RJ pilots at Jazz who don’t carry extra, in fact if it under 600 lbs over the planned we don’t even have to mention it to dispatch, probably because of how common that is.

[karmutzen]

All that extra "granny gas" cuts payload. Payload pays the bills. Operational dispatch complies with regulation (20, 30, 45) and contingencies, sometimes even using "dynamic contingency recalculation" at an intermediate location on the flight plan route to save even more. Tankering isn't uncommon, especially if payload allows it and there can be a cost saving from lower fuel prices, both GA and airlines do it.

[The Champ]

How about you land where you’re going. How windy was it really? Be good at flying airplanes. Land in Thunder Bay.

[digits_]

All that extra "granny gas" cuts payload. Payload pays the bills. Operational dispatch complies with regulation (20, 30, 45) and contingencies, sometimes even using "dynamic contingency recalculation" at an intermediate location on the flight plan route to save even more. Tankering isn't uncommon, especially if payload allows it and there can be a cost saving from lower fuel prices, both GA and airlines do it.

One of the characteristics is that "granny gas" is not officially on board and thus does not cut the payload.

Otherwise it's just extra fuel.

[photofly]

All that extra "granny gas" cuts payload. Payload pays the bills. Operational dispatch complies with regulation (20, 30, 45) and contingencies, sometimes even using "dynamic contingency recalculation" at an intermediate location on the flight plan route to save even more. Tankering isn't uncommon, especially if payload allows it and there can be a cost saving from lower fuel prices, both GA and airlines do it.

One of the characteristics is that "granny gas" is not officially on board and thus does not cut the payload.

Otherwise it's just extra fuel.

I believe that's in CAR101, isn't it?

granny gas means any fuel carried for contingency purposes that need not be entered in the weight and balance report and has no effect on payload (essence de mamie)

[digits_]

All that extra "granny gas" cuts payload. Payload pays the bills. Operational dispatch complies with regulation (20, 30, 45) and contingencies, sometimes even using "dynamic contingency recalculation" at an intermediate location on the flight plan route to save even more. Tankering isn't uncommon, especially if payload allows it and there can be a cost saving from lower fuel prices, both GA and airlines do it.

One of the characteristics is that "granny gas" is not officially on board and thus does not cut the payload.

Otherwise it's just extra fuel.

I believe that's in CAR101, isn't it?

granny gas means any fuel carried for contingency purposes that need not be entered in the weight and balance report and has no effect on payload (essence de mamie)

Its an ops spec every 703 operator is automatically grandfathered in for, as long as you don't tell anyone


Great French translation by the way