Recently, there have been several irresponsible public statements regarding the fuel status of an aeroplane that was diverted due to adverse weather conditions. These comments, often speculative and uninformed, have created unnecessary panic and concern among passengers and the public. It also casts baseless allegations on MoCA and Airlines.
It’s crucial to understand that pilots and airlines adhere to stringent fuel management protocols such as Minimum Destination Fuel (MDF) and contingency measures to handle unexpected events like weather diversions safely. The aviation industry’s primary concern is safety, and regulations are in place to ensure that even in the event of a diversion, aircraft have more than sufficient fuel to reach an alternative destination safely, including reserves for additional eventualities.
Public commentary that disregards these safety measures can undermine trust in aviation procedures and needlessly alarm travellers about the robust safety systems that are a fundamental part of modern air travel.
How did we get here?
Here is a case study of Avianca Flight 52.
Avianca Flight 52 was a regularly scheduled flight from Bogotá, Colombia, to New York City, operated by the Colombian airline Avianca. The tragic crash occurred on January 25, 1990, when the Boeing 707 aircraft ran out of fuel and crashed in Cove Neck, New York, on Long Island. The crash resulted in the deaths of 73 out of the 158 people onboard, including 8 of the 9 crew members. This disaster is particularly noted for its insights into issues of communication, resource management, and operational procedures in aviation.
Reasons Behind the Avianca Flight 52 Crash
Fuel Exhaustion
The most direct cause of the crash was fuel exhaustion. The aircraft ran out of fuel after a flight that included a prolonged period of holding due to air traffic congestion at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK). The flight was held aloft longer than the crew anticipated, and despite having reserves, it was not sufficient under the prolonged delay.
Communication Issues
A critical factor in the crash was the failure of effective communication between the flight crew and air traffic controllers at JFK. The crew, whose first language was Spanish, communicated in English but did not explicitly convey the severity of their low fuel state as an emergency until it was too late. The terminology used did not adequately express the urgency, leading to a misunderstanding of the critical nature of the situation by the air traffic controllers.
Air Traffic Control (ATC) Delays
The flight was subjected to multiple holding patterns and was put in a sequence behind other arriving international flights. JFK was experiencing unusually high traffic and adverse weather conditions that day, which led to significant delays. The air traffic controllers did not prioritise the flight as an emergency based on the crew’s communications.
Crew Resource Management
The crash highlighted issues in crew resource management, including the crew’s handling of the situation and decision-making processes. The captain and the first officer failed to assertively declare an emergency concerning their fuel state until moments before losing power, which might have prompted more immediate action from ATC.
Weather Conditions
Adverse weather conditions at JFK also contributed to the situation by necessitating the use of longer holding patterns for all inbound flights, which compounded the fuel situation for Flight 52.
Organisational and Regulatory Factors
There were also broader organisational and regulatory issues at play, including the policies regarding fuel reserves for international flights and the procedures for handling potential fuel emergencies both by airline crews and air traffic controllers.
The crash of Avianca Flight 52 had significant repercussions on international aviation policies, particularly those concerning communication, emergency handling, and fuel management. In response to this tragic event and its causes, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), along with national aviation authorities such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States, implemented several key policy changes aimed at improving safety and preventing similar incidents in the future. Here are some of the notable changes that were made in the form of ICAO Annex 6 Part 1 Amendment 36.
Understanding ICAO Annex 6 Part 1 Amendment 36: Enhancements to International Aviation Safety
The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is pivotal in establishing global aviation standards that enhance air safety, efficiency, and environmental protection. Amendment 36 to ICAO Annex 6 Part 1 represents a significant evolution in these ongoing efforts, focusing on numerous key areas to bolster international flight operations. This article delves into the specifics of the amendment, its implications, and the benefits it aims to bring to the global aviation community.
Overview of Amendment 36
ICAO Annex 6 Part 1 concerns the operation of aircraft and is a critical component in the international standards and recommended practices (SARPs). Amendment 36, implemented to reflect the latest advancements and learnings in aviation safety, includes comprehensive updates aimed at enhancing operational procedures, safety equipment requirements, and pilot training standards among others. The amendment’s broad scope ensures that it addresses multiple aspects of flight operations, from cockpit technology to crew member health standards.
Key Features of Amendment 36
- Enhanced CVR and FDR Requirements
Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVRs) must now record at least 25 hours of cockpit audio, up from the previous two-hour requirement. This change ensures that audio from longer flights can be thoroughly reviewed when necessary. Flight Data Recorders (FDRs) are required to capture a broader range of data parameters, providing a more detailed picture of aircraft performance during all phases of flight.
- Upgraded Standards for Flight Tracking
Continuous tracking of aircraft is mandated under certain circumstances, aimed at improving the ability to locate aircraft that are in distress or remote areas. This provision was largely influenced by the disappearance of MH370, highlighting the need for better tracking and monitoring.
- Improved Safety Management Systems
The amendment further integrates Safety Management Systems into daily operational practices, ensuring that all personnel are involved in identifying and managing risks.
- Fuel Planning and Management Enhancements
Updates to fuel policy regulations strengthen the requirements for minimum fuel reserve calculations and emergency fuel planning, aiming to prevent incidents of fuel exhaustion.
Implications for Global Aviation
The changes introduced in Amendment 36 are designed to make international air travel safer by leveraging technology and updating standards to reflect current challenges and technological capabilities. These enhancements help prevent accidents and incidents while ensuring that airlines are better prepared for a range of emergency situations.
Benefits of Amendment 36
- Increased Operational Safety: The extended recording time for CVRs and additional data capture by FDRs allow for more effective investigation and understanding of incidents.
- Improved Crisis Management: Enhanced tracking capabilities facilitate quicker response times in emergency situations, potentially saving lives.
- Enhanced Risk Management: The reinforced SMS provisions help airlines prevent accidents before they occur, promoting a culture of safety at all levels of operation.
- Unambiguous Fuel Management. Minimum Destination Fuel (MDF) and May Day Fuel were brought in.
Understanding Minimum Destination Fuel and Mayday Fuel
Minimum Destination Fuel
Minimum Destination Fuel (MDF) is the calculated minimum amount of fuel required for an aircraft to reach its destination airport and then to an alternate airport if necessary, including reserves for unforeseen circumstances. MDF is a crucial calculation that ensures an aircraft carries enough fuel to complete its journey safely without running critically low.
Calculation
The calculation of MDF typically includes the following components:
- Trip Fuel: Fuel required to reach the destination airport from the last refuelling point.
- Contingency Fuel: Typically 5 per cent of the trip fuel or more, to cover unforeseen circumstances like adverse weather, navigation reroutes, or holding patterns.
- Alternate Fuel: Fuel needed to reach an alternate airport if a landing at the destination airport is not possible.
- Final Reserve Fuel: Often calculated as enough fuel for 30 minutes of flight at holding speed at 1,500 feet above the alternate airport under standard conditions.
Operational Impact
Pilots must constantly monitor their fuel status against MDF, especially as flight conditions change. If projected fuel upon arrival falls below MDF, pilots must take corrective action, which may include rerouting, altitude changes to improve fuel efficiency, or even diverting to an alternate airport well before the situation becomes critical.
Mayday Fuel
Mayday Fuel is the threshold below which an aircraft must declare a fuel emergency using the international distress signal “MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY.” This declaration informs air traffic control and all nearby aircraft that a critical safety situation exists, primarily due to low fuel levels. The aim is to prioritise the aircraft for immediate landing clearance to prevent fuel exhaustion.
Calculation
Mayday Fuel is determined by the following
- Expected Fuel on Landing: This includes only the final reserve fuel and any additional fuel required to safely land at the intended destination or an alternate if the primary is unavailable.
- Declaration Point: A mayday call is made if calculations show that landing with more than the final reserve fuel is compromised. This decision is critical and is based on real-time assessments of fuel status against the remaining flight path and conditions.
Operational Impact
Declaring a fuel emergency has significant operational implications. It typically results in air traffic controllers giving priority for landing to the aircraft, clearing airspace as necessary, and preparing on-ground emergency services to respond immediately upon landing.
Importance in Aviation Safety
Both MDF and Mayday Fuel are vital for maintaining safety margins during flight operations. They are designed to prevent instances of fuel exhaustion in the air, which can lead to catastrophic outcomes. By strictly adhering to these thresholds, flight crews can effectively manage fuel resources, even in adverse conditions, and ensure that safety is never compromised.
Minimum Destination Fuel and Mayday Fuel are essential concepts in aviation fuel management, acting as critical safeguards to ensure that aircraft operate within safe fuel parameters. The rigorous application of these standards helps to mitigate the risk of fuel-related emergencies, ensuring the safety of passengers and crew across all phases of flight. As part of broader safety management systems, these fuel policies demonstrate the aviation industry’s commitment to maintaining the highest safety standards through meticulous planning and proactive management.
Aviation fuel management is a critical component of flight safety, involving stringent policies to ensure that aircraft have sufficient fuel for all phases of a flight, considering unexpected events and emergencies. Among the various fuel management protocols, the concepts of Minimum Destination Fuel and Mayday Fuel are especially significant. These terms define key fuel thresholds that are essential for the safe operation of flights.
Group Capt MJ Augustine Vinod VSM (retd) tweets at @mjavinod; Vineet Maliakal is COO, AutoMicroUAS. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
Comments
0 comment