Narrative:

Flight was scheduled non-stop from des moines to las at FL350. Heavier than anticipated gross weight at takeoff, extensive use of wing and engine anti-ice departing the midwest, winds in excess of forecast, inability to obtain RNAV direct clearance, and an ATC requirement for slightly less through half the flight to be conducted at lower than planned flight levels (FL310, then FL280), combined by the midpoint to indicate that we would arrive in las with company acceptable minimum fuel reserves, but with less fuel than the flight plan indicated. In the vicinity of bryce canyon, ut, we were given our first delaying vector north of course to allow for sep with higher, faster traffic, also inbound to las. We were then cleared direct on the arrival and handed off to the next sector. This controller asked us to slow to 260 KIAS, which we did. He then requested of us a delaying vector heading substantially south of our direct course. We told him we could not accept the vector, and requested to proceed flight plan route. He asked why, then accommodated our request. Our response was that we anticipated arrival with minimum acceptable fuel. Upon being handed off to las approach control, we were asked if we required emergency vehicles to be standing by. It was obvious at that point that there had been a misunderstanding with the previous ZLC controller. We informed the approach controller that we did not have an emergency, and had not declared an emergency. The second approach controller and the tower controller also queried us about our fuel status. Upon arrival in las company operations, we were met by a rep of the local FAA office, to whom we explained the particulars of the situation. The entire incident appears to clearly be a misunderstanding. Our intention in not accepting the delaying vector was to avoid arrival in las with less than minimum fuel. We did not ask for expeditious handling, nor did we perceive ourselves to be in an emergency situation. We desired simply to be handled in the normal flow to avoid development of the former.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR PLT INDICATES MINIMUM FUEL STATUS AND GETS PRIORITY HANDLING BY ATC TO ARPT AND IS MET BY FSDO INSPECTOR. PLT REPORTER MAINTAINS THAT IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING.

Narrative: FLT WAS SCHEDULED NON-STOP FROM DES MOINES TO LAS AT FL350. HEAVIER THAN ANTICIPATED GROSS WT AT TKOF, EXTENSIVE USE OF WING AND ENG ANTI-ICE DEPARTING THE MIDWEST, WINDS IN EXCESS OF FORECAST, INABILITY TO OBTAIN RNAV DIRECT CLRNC, AND AN ATC REQUIREMENT FOR SLIGHTLY LESS THROUGH HALF THE FLT TO BE CONDUCTED AT LOWER THAN PLANNED FLT LEVELS (FL310, THEN FL280), COMBINED BY THE MIDPOINT TO INDICATE THAT WE WOULD ARRIVE IN LAS WITH COMPANY ACCEPTABLE MINIMUM FUEL RESERVES, BUT WITH LESS FUEL THAN THE FLT PLAN INDICATED. IN THE VICINITY OF BRYCE CANYON, UT, WE WERE GIVEN OUR FIRST DELAYING VECTOR N OF COURSE TO ALLOW FOR SEP WITH HIGHER, FASTER TFC, ALSO INBND TO LAS. WE WERE THEN CLRED DIRECT ON THE ARR AND HANDED OFF TO THE NEXT SECTOR. THIS CTLR ASKED US TO SLOW TO 260 KIAS, WHICH WE DID. HE THEN REQUESTED OF US A DELAYING VECTOR HDG SUBSTANTIALLY S OF OUR DIRECT COURSE. WE TOLD HIM WE COULD NOT ACCEPT THE VECTOR, AND REQUESTED TO PROCEED FLT PLAN RTE. HE ASKED WHY, THEN ACCOMMODATED OUR REQUEST. OUR RESPONSE WAS THAT WE ANTICIPATED ARR WITH MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE FUEL. UPON BEING HANDED OFF TO LAS APCH CTL, WE WERE ASKED IF WE REQUIRED EMER VEHICLES TO BE STANDING BY. IT WAS OBVIOUS AT THAT POINT THAT THERE HAD BEEN A MISUNDERSTANDING WITH THE PREVIOUS ZLC CTLR. WE INFORMED THE APCH CTLR THAT WE DID NOT HAVE AN EMER, AND HAD NOT DECLARED AN EMER. THE SECOND APCH CTLR AND THE TWR CTLR ALSO QUERIED US ABOUT OUR FUEL STATUS. UPON ARR IN LAS COMPANY OPS, WE WERE MET BY A REP OF THE LCL FAA OFFICE, TO WHOM WE EXPLAINED THE PARTICULARS OF THE SITUATION. THE ENTIRE INCIDENT APPEARS TO CLEARLY BE A MISUNDERSTANDING. OUR INTENTION IN NOT ACCEPTING THE DELAYING VECTOR WAS TO AVOID ARR IN LAS WITH LESS THAN MINIMUM FUEL. WE DID NOT ASK FOR EXPEDITIOUS HANDLING, NOR DID WE PERCEIVE OURSELVES TO BE IN AN EMER SITUATION. WE DESIRED SIMPLY TO BE HANDLED IN THE NORMAL FLOW TO AVOID DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.