Narrative:

We were operating from paris to boston via rerelease dispatch procedures. We received our rerelease to bos (no alternate) from dispatch just after 50 west. The bos WX was good VFR with strong northwest surface winds (310 at 25g35) and we had more than the minimum allowable fuel required to complete the flight. However, winds aloft over the maritime provinces were much stronger than forecast and temperatures were well above standard causing greater than planned fuel burn. When we first contacted bos center near the USA/canadian border the captain advised them that we were minimum fuel and specifically stated that we needed to know as soon as possible if there was going to be any delay for our arrival at bos. This was acknowledged and we were cleared direct scupp intersection (bos 082/36 NM). The flight proceeded normally until about 80 NM from the airport when we were given a clearance to hold at scupp for 25 mins. The captain asked if they were aware of our minimum fuel state and advised we could hold for only about 5 mins. Approach responded they were and asked us our alternate. Since we were now about 130 NM beyond bangor, our last reasonable alternate landing site, the captain stated we were committed to land in boston. As we reached scupp approach control told us 'the supervisor has declared an emergency for you'. The captain did not himself declare an emergency nor was our fuel state mentioned for the remainder of the flight. We did not hold. However, it took nearly 30 mins from scupp to landing on runway 33L. We apparently were placed in normal sequence with all other traffic landing at boston. Since our fuel never reached a dangerously low level, we followed the vectors and accepted the sequencing. We landed with 40 mins of fuel remaining and were met by the FAA who had been notified by ATC. The FAA investigator could not explain how an emergency could be declared on our behalf nor why we were handled the way we were if in fact ATC considered us an emergency. We could have easily landed at bangor or another airport with earlier notice about the arrival delay at boston. Also, even though we did not hold there was still no way to estimate our landing time because the extent of the vectoring and the speed to be flown was unknown. A program needs to be developed to accurately estimate arrival delays. This system, which would update frequently, would factor in all probable holds, delaying vectors, in trail sep and other variables to provide an estimated time of landing for each aircraft. This conservative estimate would be passed on to each flight early enough so decisions could be made before alternatives no longer existed. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. We thought we would receive some special handling if we told ARTCC about our minimum fuel situation. Did not want to get caught in some surprise lengthy delays. Never felt that we reached an emergency situation to justify declaring an emergency. Apparently ARTCC supervisor made the decision to declare emergency in order to pass us along the chain of communication for special handling. Special handling amounted to no more delays although we seemed to follow everyone ahead. No one was peeled off the approach for us.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WDB FLT CREW FROM ATLANTIC CROSSING ACFISED ZBW MINIMUM FUEL, UNABLE TOLERATE DELAY. ARTCC SUPVR DECLARED EMERGENCY. FAA MET ACFT ON LNDG.

Narrative: WE WERE OPERATING FROM PARIS TO BOSTON VIA RERELEASE DISPATCH PROCS. WE RECEIVED OUR RERELEASE TO BOS (NO ALTERNATE) FROM DISPATCH JUST AFTER 50 W. THE BOS WX WAS GOOD VFR WITH STRONG NW SURFACE WINDS (310 AT 25G35) AND WE HAD MORE THAN THE MINIMUM ALLOWABLE FUEL REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE FLT. HOWEVER, WINDS ALOFT OVER THE MARITIME PROVINCES WERE MUCH STRONGER THAN FORECAST AND TEMPS WERE WELL ABOVE STANDARD CAUSING GREATER THAN PLANNED FUEL BURN. WHEN WE FIRST CONTACTED BOS CENTER NEAR THE USA/CANADIAN BORDER THE CAPT ADVISED THEM THAT WE WERE MINIMUM FUEL AND SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT WE NEEDED TO KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE ANY DELAY FOR OUR ARR AT BOS. THIS WAS ACKNOWLEDGED AND WE WERE CLRED DIRECT SCUPP INTXN (BOS 082/36 NM). THE FLT PROCEEDED NORMALLY UNTIL ABOUT 80 NM FROM THE ARPT WHEN WE WERE GIVEN A CLRNC TO HOLD AT SCUPP FOR 25 MINS. THE CAPT ASKED IF THEY WERE AWARE OF OUR MINIMUM FUEL STATE AND ADVISED WE COULD HOLD FOR ONLY ABOUT 5 MINS. APCH RESPONDED THEY WERE AND ASKED US OUR ALTERNATE. SINCE WE WERE NOW ABOUT 130 NM BEYOND BANGOR, OUR LAST REASONABLE ALTERNATE LNDG SITE, THE CAPT STATED WE WERE COMMITTED TO LAND IN BOSTON. AS WE REACHED SCUPP APCH CTL TOLD US 'THE SUPVR HAS DECLARED AN EMER FOR YOU'. THE CAPT DID NOT HIMSELF DECLARE AN EMER NOR WAS OUR FUEL STATE MENTIONED FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE FLT. WE DID NOT HOLD. HOWEVER, IT TOOK NEARLY 30 MINS FROM SCUPP TO LNDG ON RWY 33L. WE APPARENTLY WERE PLACED IN NORMAL SEQUENCE WITH ALL OTHER TFC LNDG AT BOSTON. SINCE OUR FUEL NEVER REACHED A DANGEROUSLY LOW LEVEL, WE FOLLOWED THE VECTORS AND ACCEPTED THE SEQUENCING. WE LANDED WITH 40 MINS OF FUEL REMAINING AND WERE MET BY THE FAA WHO HAD BEEN NOTIFIED BY ATC. THE FAA INVESTIGATOR COULD NOT EXPLAIN HOW AN EMER COULD BE DECLARED ON OUR BEHALF NOR WHY WE WERE HANDLED THE WAY WE WERE IF IN FACT ATC CONSIDERED US AN EMER. WE COULD HAVE EASILY LANDED AT BANGOR OR ANOTHER ARPT WITH EARLIER NOTICE ABOUT THE ARR DELAY AT BOSTON. ALSO, EVEN THOUGH WE DID NOT HOLD THERE WAS STILL NO WAY TO ESTIMATE OUR LNDG TIME BECAUSE THE EXTENT OF THE VECTORING AND THE SPD TO BE FLOWN WAS UNKNOWN. A PROGRAM NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED TO ACCURATELY ESTIMATE ARR DELAYS. THIS SYS, WHICH WOULD UPDATE FREQUENTLY, WOULD FACTOR IN ALL PROBABLE HOLDS, DELAYING VECTORS, IN TRAIL SEP AND OTHER VARIABLES TO PROVIDE AN ESTIMATED TIME OF LNDG FOR EACH ACFT. THIS CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE WOULD BE PASSED ON TO EACH FLT EARLY ENOUGH SO DECISIONS COULD BE MADE BEFORE ALTERNATIVES NO LONGER EXISTED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. WE THOUGHT WE WOULD RECEIVE SOME SPECIAL HANDLING IF WE TOLD ARTCC ABOUT OUR MINIMUM FUEL SITUATION. DID NOT WANT TO GET CAUGHT IN SOME SURPRISE LENGTHY DELAYS. NEVER FELT THAT WE REACHED AN EMER SITUATION TO JUSTIFY DECLARING AN EMER. APPARENTLY ARTCC SUPVR MADE THE DECISION TO DECLARE EMER IN ORDER TO PASS US ALONG THE CHAIN OF COM FOR SPECIAL HANDLING. SPECIAL HANDLING AMOUNTED TO NO MORE DELAYS ALTHOUGH WE SEEMED TO FOLLOW EVERYONE AHEAD. NO ONE WAS PEELED OFF THE APCH FOR US.

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.