What does "Minimum Fuel" mean?

john smith wrote:
Callback #318
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/callback_issues/cb_318.htm

³Minimum Fuel" Does Not Mean Priority Handling

It never has.

It is a great tool for an airline pilot to use to give ATC "heads up"
that any further delay could result in the pilot declaring an emergency
because of low fuel state.

It is folly to use the tool unless the flight has been properly planned,
dispatched, and flown with fuel progess in a satisfactory state.

Thus, it can only be used in the destination terminal area, after a lot
of arrival dalay holds, delay vectors, etc.

And, if the flight is required to have an alternate, then "minimum fuel"
is not a valid reason to avoid going to the alternate because of delays.

It works best when no alternate is required and the ATC handling on
arrival is a series of "endless" delays.

For Part 91 operations in light aircraft, I am not sure any of this has
much value.

Sam Spade wrote:
Thus, it can only be used in the destination terminal area, after a lot
of arrival dalay holds, delay vectors, etc.

It is probably most often used by oceanic flights after encounting
unexpected winds or having flown at an unexpected altitude. No need to
have "a lot of arrival delays".
Flights don't carry a lot of extra fuel since its very expensive to
haul a bunch of extra fuel up to 30,000+ just to return it to earth and
cargo pays better.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Sam Spade wrote:

Thus, it can only be used in the destination terminal area, after a lot
of arrival dalay holds, delay vectors, etc.


It is probably most often used by oceanic flights after encounting
unexpected winds or having flown at an unexpected altitude. No need to
have "a lot of arrival delays".
Flights don't carry a lot of extra fuel since its very expensive to
haul a bunch of extra fuel up to 30,000+ just to return it to earth and
cargo pays better.

-Robert


My experience was that it is used by transcon flight more, simply
because there are more of them.