Are all FAA administrators this dumb?

F

frcabot

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 4, 2014
Messages
779
Display Name
Display name:
frcabot
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unanswered-questions-surround-emergency-allegiant-plane-landing/

Let me get this straight. A commercial pilot who taps into his reserve fuel should not declare an emergency. Instead, he should fly around in a holding pattern for another 20 minutes waiting for an opening so by the time he is ready to land he has 15 minutes of fuel remaining. And then if a go around or a missed is required, he should just deadstick the landing?

Have these idiots learned nothing from Avianca? The fact that some NTSB and FAA former executives are questioning the PIC's decision to declare an emergency is pathetic and exactly the wrong attitude. Next time we have an airliner run out of fuel, the pilot (assuming he survives) will say he was too nervous to declare an emergency because the FAA and the NTSB said that pilots shouldn't do so.

Idiots. Even the FAA's own written guidance provides that an airliner dropping below final reserve fuel IS an emergency.
 
Last edited:
ICAO guidance: 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 final reserve fuel (30 to 45 minutes depending on regulations).
 
I'm running out of popcorn.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm running out of popcorn.
Click to expand...

Here's a refill.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • POPC.jpg
    POPC.jpg
    252.7 KB · Views: 359
That ought to hold me until tomorrow, anyway. :)
 
Can't I get substantive comments? Come on.
 
Not sure about ICAO guidance, but as far as the FAA is concerned, reserves have always been considered as "planning" numbers. I'm sure someone here will come along with some remote fact to prove me wrong, but I'm just telling you how it is in the real world.
 
Exactly what does "bingo" mean when a pilot of a civilian aircraft declares it? Isn't bingo a military term?
 
Last edited:
Rigged4Flight said:
Exactly what does "bingo" mean when a pilot of a civilian aircraft declares it? Isn't bingo a military term?
Click to expand...

Correct, which is why I said on the other thread, they either want to hear minimum fuel or emergency fuel. Bingo means nothing to ATC.

In this case I believe he did declare an emergency and the bingo term was used later.
 
frcabot said:
Right, so he was below 45 mins, controller was telling him he was going to have to hold at least 20 more minutes for an opening, I think declaring a fuel emergency at that point was a perfectly reasonable response.
Click to expand...

Sure, sounds reasonable. I'm just saying that just because they went into their reserve, doesn't necessarily require an emergency declaration. At least in the FAA's eyes it doesn't. Pilot discretion.
 
Velocity173 said:
Sure, sounds reasonable. I'm just saying that just because they went into their reserve, doesn't necessarily require an emergency declaration. At least in the FAA's eyes it doesn't. Pilot discretion.
Click to expand...
Agree, pilot's discretion. So why are these FAA and NTSB high up nitwits second guessing pilot discretion and telling the media how dumb he is for having declared an emergency? A former NTSB board member and deputy FAA administrator, FFS.
 
I think the main problem has been identified:
The pilots have been identified as airline executives Greg Baden, Vice President of Flight Operations and Michael Wuerger, Allegiant's Director of Flight Safety.
Click to expand...
 
frcabot said:
Agree, pilot's discretion. So why are these FAA and NTSB high up nitwits second guessing pilot discretion and telling the media how dumb he is for having declared an emergency? A former NTSB board member and deputy FAA administrator, FFS.
Click to expand...

OK, just so you know, Scott Brenner is a convienent source for journalists looking for a former FAA executive, but hardly speaks for the agency. He is a former associate administrator of public affairs, and hasn't worked at the agency in 11 years. He's now basically a paid talking head for folks like Fox News and other news outlets. His opinion on what is considered an emergency is hardly relevant.
 
frcabot said:
Right, so he was below 45 mins, controller was telling him he was going to have to hold at least 20 more minutes for an opening, I think declaring a fuel emergency at that point was a perfectly reasonable response.
Click to expand...

Unable to take a delay at destination seems to fit the "minimum fuel" definition pretty well. That's likely the route I would have taken.
That said, I won't second guess the crew that was there at the time.
 
Kritchlow said:
Unable to take a delay at destination seems to fit the "minimum fuel" definition pretty well. That's likely the route I would have taken.
That said, I won't second guess the crew that was there at the time.
Click to expand...
No point in saying minimum fuel. He communicated in plain English (or plane English lol) that he couldn't accept a delay and the controller told him in that case he'd have to declare an emergency. Which he then correctly did.
 
frcabot said:
No point in saying minimum fuel. He communicated in plain English (or plane English lol) that he couldn't accept a delay and the controller told him in that case he'd have to declare an emergency. Which he then correctly did.
Click to expand...

I get that... I still would have first stated, for the record, minimum fuel. Instead of saying "we can't take a delay", I would have used the formal, recognized term. That just *might* have put a bit of pressure on them to let him in.
As I said, I'm not second guessing the crew.
 
Kritchlow said:
I get that... I still would have first stated, for the record, minimum fuel. Instead of saying "we can't take a delay", I would have used the formal, recognized term. That just *might* have put a bit of pressure on them to let him in.
As I said, I'm not second guessing the crew.
Click to expand...
The truth is neither pilots nor controllers know what minimum fuel means. Lots of controllers will simply declare an emergency on your behalf if you say minimum fuel, others will act as if it means nothing at all.
 
frcabot said:
The truth is neither pilots nor controllers know what minimum fuel means. Lots of controllers will simply declare an emergency on your behalf if you say minimum fuel, others will act as if it means nothing at all.
Click to expand...

I have heard controllers declare emergecies on your behalf, but never for min fuel.
That said, there is a definition for min fuel, and it fits this situation perfectly.
On a side note, if the controller did declare emergency for crew, this entire thread wouldn't exist.
 
frcabot said:
The truth is neither pilots nor controllers know what minimum fuel means. Lots of controllers will simply declare an emergency on your behalf if you say minimum fuel, others will act as if it means nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Really? :rolleyes:

Order 7110.65V Air Traffic Control

2−1−8. MINIMUM FUEL
If an aircraft declares a state of “minimum fuel,”
inform any facility to whom control jurisdiction is
transferred of the minimum fuel problem and be alert
for any occurrence which might delay the aircraft
en route.
NOTE−
Use of the term “minimum fuel” indicates recognition by
a pilot that his/her fuel supply has reached a state where,
upon reaching destination, he/she cannot accept any undue
delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely an
advisory that indicates an emergency situation is possible
should any undue delay occur. A minimum fuel advisory
does not imply a need for traffic priority. Common sense
and good judgment will determine the extent of assistance
to be given in minimum fuel situations. If, at any time, the
remaining usable fuel supply suggests the need for traffic
priority to ensure a safe landing, the pilot should declare
an emergency and report fuel remaining in minutes
Click to expand...
AIM

5−5−15. Minimum Fuel Advisory
a. Pilot.
1. 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.
2. Be aware this is not an emergency situation,
but merely an advisory that indicates an emergency
situation is possible should any undue delay occur.
3. On initial contact the term “minimum fuel”
should be used after stating call sign.
EXAMPLE−
Salt Lake Approach, United 621, “minimum fuel.”
4. Be aware a minimum fuel advisory does not
imply a need for traffic priority.
5. 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.
REFERENCE−
Pilot/Controller Glossary Item− Fuel Remaining.
b. Controller.
1. When an aircraft declares a state of minimum
fuel, relay this information to the facility to whom
control jurisdiction is transferred.
2. Be alert for any occurrence which might
delay the aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
Aren't airliners required to have enough fuel to fly to destination, then alternate, then another 45 minutes? It would seem that once any fuel that may have been allocated for holding was exhausted, it would be time to divert to the alternate.

If the flight only had enough fuel for destination , then alternate plus 45 minutes, and none reserved for delays, then once holding instructions were given it would be time to divert right then.
 
Also, while on this topic, I am curious. Do the fuel reserve regulations apply to skydiving operations out of the same departure/arrival airport?

On one hand, less fuel = less weight = faster climb = faster turnaround = more money.

On the other, less safety. If someone landed rough and closed the runway while the skydivers were airborne, should they have enough fuel to divert elsewhere instead of running out of fuel? :dunno:
 
vintage cessna said:
Aren't airliners required to have enough fuel to fly to destination, then alternate, then another 45 minutes? It would seem that once any fuel that may have been allocated for holding was exhausted, it would be time to divert to the alternate.

If the flight only had enough fuel for destination , then alternate plus 45 minutes, and none reserved for delays, then once holding instructions were given it would be time to divert right then.
Click to expand...
It depends. The 45 minute reserve is for planning purposes. We are not required to land with 45 minutes. For example, if they give us a couple vectors because there's a truck on runway doing an inspection, I would land with 40 minutes instead of divert. Of course if the said any sort of lengthy delay I would divert.
 
Kritchlow said:
It depends. The 45 minute reserve is for planning purposes. We are not required to land with 45 minutes. For example, if they give us a couple vectors because there's a truck on runway doing an inspection, I would land with 40 minutes instead of divert. Of course if the said any sort of lengthy delay I would divert.
Click to expand...

The story doesn't reveal if the pilot was given an expect further clearance time. After 18 minutes of holding the pilot felt he was in an emergency situation. If he was given a realistic EFC, then it seems he should have diverted immediately.

If he was given a misleading EFC then I might understand his reluctance to divert.
 
vintage cessna said:
The story doesn't reveal if the pilot was given an expect further clearance time. After 18 minutes of holding the pilot felt he was in an emergency situation. If he was given a realistic EFC, then it seems he should have diverted immediately.

If he was given a misleading EFC then I might understand his reluctance to divert.
Click to expand...

The first time he talked to Fargo Tower, he was told he could land in about twenty minutes.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40707&d=1438309169
 
Palmpilot said:
The first time he talked to Fargo Tower, he was told he could land in about twenty minutes.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40707&d=1438309169
Click to expand...

The way I'm putting this together is , Minneapolis Center issues the pilot holding instructions. After 18 minutes of holding, the pilot decides to contact Fargo tower directly to make inquiries.

If Center gave a realistic EFC, it would be time to divert as soon as that EFC was issued.

What we need to hear is the conversation and clearances issued by Center.
 
Flight missed its slot by an hour, pilots knew this taking off. Rather than anybody contacting tower to work the delayed arrival into a lull period as other flights did, capt. called up cold and tower had to find the next slot.

After 18 minutes of holding, capt was down to 48 minutes of fuel and was told he could divert, wait 20 min, or declare.

Capt decided to declare but screwed up the call, leading to these questions.

Crew f***ed up by the numbers. End decision was questionable, but the emergency began when they pushed back from the gate.
 
vintage cessna said:
The way I'm putting this together is , Minneapolis Center issues the pilot holding instructions. After 18 minutes of holding, the pilot decides to contact Fargo tower directly to make inquiries.

If Center gave a realistic EFC, it would be time to divert as soon as that EFC was issued.

What we need to hear is the conversation and clearances issued by Center.
Click to expand...

I was unable to find a recording of that ZMP sector.
 
warthog1984 said:
Flight missed its slot by an hour, pilots knew this taking off. Rather than anybody contacting tower to work the delayed arrival into a lull period as other flights did, capt. called up cold and tower had to find the next slot.
Click to expand...

According to the recording, someone from the airline had already been trying to reach the tower manager on the phone, without success.
 
warthog1984 said:
Flight missed its slot by an hour, pilots knew this taking off. Rather than anybody contacting tower to work the delayed arrival into a lull period as other flights did, capt. called up cold and tower had to find the next slot.

After 18 minutes of holding, capt was down to 48 minutes of fuel and was told he could divert, wait 20 min, or declare.

Capt decided to declare but screwed up the call, leading to these questions.

Crew f***ed up by the numbers. End decision was questionable, but the emergency began when they pushed back from the gate.
Click to expand...
Disagree. If the NOTAM said schedule air carrier flights were exempted, then they should have been exempted.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
wow....that's crazy. :goofy:
Click to expand...
It's like anything else. E.g. You have a secretary of defense, then you have undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, deputy secretaries, deputy undersecretaries, deputy assistant secretaries, etc. Same for any other cabinet position or agency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top