The use of the phrase minimum fuel is used to describe a situation when an aircrafts fuel supply has reached a state where having committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than the designated fixed reserve.

It does not change priority for the aircraft vs other aircraft heading to the same aerodrome.

VASAviation channel on Youtube have a shorted and unedited graphics and ATC recordings.

VASAviation recording 20 mins

VASAviation 5 minute version

Should the crew diverted to Auckland and topped up the tanks ?

A sigmet doesn’t necessarily mean that an aerodrome becomes unavailable as an alternate. Also, I highly doubt that United only have one option for an alternate on the east coast of Australia. There are ‘preferred alternates’, which would include company handling etc., but I imagine they also have suitable alternates which can be nominated for a legal perspective only.

Secondly, even if it did, then they then have the fuel no longer required for that alternate to use for the approach and landing in Sydney.

What was Sydney weather like at the time?

SPECI YSSY 032230Z 20012KT 9999 -RA BKN006 BKN035 16/15 Q1018

Pretty much as per the TAF they had at time of departure.

Thanks Mark.

I still can’t work out why they couldn’t just change their alternate to Canberra or even Brisbane? It’s not like Sydney was below landing minima.

Anyway, I’m sure there was a lot going on in the cockpit at the time and perhaps company restrictions behind availability of alternates.

Mick