What does "Minimum Fuel" mean?

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

³Minimum Fuel" Does Not Mean Priority Handling

Recent ASRS incident reports reveal a common misunderstanding involving
use of the phrase ³minimum fuel. Pilots may tell ATC that they have
³minimum fuel with the expectation that they will receive priority
handling. However, ATC is under no obligation to provide priority
handling unless the pilot declares a fuel ³emergency. The AIM (section
5-5-15) provides further clarification:

*Advise ATC of your minimum fuel status when your fuel supply has
reached a state where, upon reaching destination, you cannot accept any
undue delay.
*Be aware that this is not an emergency situation, but merely an
advisoryŠ.
*Be aware [that] a minimum fuel advisory does not imply a need for
traffic priority.
*If the remaining usable fuel supply suggests the need for traffic
priority to ensure a safe landing, you should declare an emergency due
to low fuel and report fuel remaining in minutes.

Controllers have several responsibilities when advised of a ³minimum
fuel situation they must relay this information to the ATC facility to
which control jurisdiction is transferred; and be alert for any
occurrence that might delay the aircraft. Controllers are also
encouraged to use ³common sense and good judgement [to] determine the
extent of assistance to be given in minimum fuel situations. (Order
7110.65, Air Traffic Control)

A report from an MD-80 Captain describes a ³minimum fuel situation and
shows how ATC used its judgement to declare an emergency when the flight
crew was reluctant to use the ³E word. (Editor¹s note: See CALLBACK #310
for a fuller discussion of emergency declarations.)

Callback #310
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/callback_issues/cb_310.htm

According to the FAA's Pilot/Controller Glossary, an Emergency is "a
distress or an urgency condition." The Glossary defines distress as "a
condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and
requiring immediate assistance." Urgency is defined as "a condition of
being concerned about safety and of requiring timely but not immediate
assistance; a potential distress condition."

Since most would agree on what constitutes a distress condition (e.g.
fire, mechanical failure, structural damage), the challenge appears to
be for pilots and controllers to recognize when an "urgent" condition
justifies declaring an emergency.

The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) states: "...Some are reluctant
to report an urgency condition when they encounter situations which may
not be immediately perilous, but are potentially catastrophic."

The following ASRS reports show that air traffic controllers may have
another viewpoint regarding the need to use the "E"word.

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.