Narrative:

A series of events during the arrival process resulted in a 'minimum fuel' situation and declaration. Sea weather 11;000 broken; 10 miles visibility. All 3 runways operational. Projected landing fuel approximately 6300 lbs at top of descent. Prior to descent assigned a 250 kts speed restriction on glasr arrival with witro crossing altitude at or above FL280 and subsequent discretion to FL240. Subsequently vectored north off the arrival prior to jaksn intersection and given further descent to 17;000. Eventually given clearance back direct jaksn and descent to 13;000. Subsequently cleared to 12;000. Shortly after jaksn directed to slow to 190 kts and given extended vectors for a 20-25 nm final to ILS runway 16R due to congestion. Given further instruction to maintain 190 kts or greater. Maintained 190 kts but spacing on preceding A330 was inadequate according to tower. They directed us to go-around just crossing the FAF at finka at approximately 1900 ft. As we turned out to the west; fuel remaining became a concern and I queried ATC as to our sequence. We were number 8 for the approach. We subsequently declared minimum fuel with approach control and we were assigned runway 16L. After another lengthy final; we reported the FAF; dglas; and minimum fuel to tower. A 747 was holding in position and then cleared for takeoff prior to our arrival. We were surprised the 747 was directed to line up and hold and then subsequently cleared for takeoff after we declared minimum fuel. We landed uneventfully and taxied back to gate. Shutdown with 3800 lbs total fuel and both main fuel tank 'low fuel' alerts. Left main indicated 1.87 and right main indicated 1.90.the purpose of this report is solely to share thoughts on an ATC system that appears broken. Stars into sea such as the glasr 1 arrival are supposed to allow for smooth traffic flow and fuel efficient operations in a variety of weather conditions. Too often this isn't the case and a sufficiently planned landing fuel can quickly degenerate into a less-than-adequate; or worse; emergency fuel landing situation. With 3 runways; good weather; and operating on time; it's hard to understand why RNAV arrivals into sea are proving ineffective when we're consistently vectored off of the planned arrival and assigned slower speeds 100 NM from the airport. Modernization of our antiquated ATC system is an imperative if we're to maintain a high level of aviation safety. Today's arrival was very uncomfortable to put it bluntly. I feel like even though we thoughtfully planned and discussed all relevant threats and considerations; we were still funneled into a potentially very precarious situation.caused by poor RNAV arrival design/traffic congestion.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-900 Captain reported he was unhappy with ATC handling of his aircraft after he declared minimum fuel.

Narrative: A series of events during the arrival process resulted in a 'minimum fuel' situation and declaration. SEA Weather 11;000 BKN; 10 miles visibility. All 3 runways operational. Projected landing fuel approximately 6300 lbs at Top of Descent. Prior to descent assigned a 250 kts speed restriction on GLASR arrival with WITRO crossing altitude at or above FL280 and subsequent discretion to FL240. Subsequently vectored north off the arrival prior to JAKSN intersection and given further descent to 17;000. Eventually given clearance back direct JAKSN and descent to 13;000. Subsequently cleared to 12;000. Shortly after JAKSN directed to slow to 190 kts and given extended vectors for a 20-25 nm final to ILS RWY 16R due to congestion. Given further instruction to maintain 190 kts or greater. Maintained 190 kts but spacing on preceding A330 was inadequate according to Tower. They directed us to go-around just crossing the FAF at FINKA at approximately 1900 ft. As we turned out to the west; fuel remaining became a concern and I queried ATC as to our sequence. We were number 8 for the approach. We subsequently declared minimum fuel with approach control and we were assigned RWY 16L. After another lengthy final; we reported the FAF; DGLAS; and minimum fuel to Tower. A 747 was holding in position and then cleared for takeoff prior to our arrival. We were surprised the 747 was directed to line up and hold and then subsequently cleared for takeoff after we declared minimum fuel. We landed uneventfully and taxied back to gate. Shutdown with 3800 lbs total fuel and both main fuel tank 'low fuel' alerts. Left main indicated 1.87 and right main indicated 1.90.The purpose of this report is solely to share thoughts on an ATC system that appears broken. STARs into SEA such as the GLASR 1 arrival are supposed to allow for smooth traffic flow and fuel efficient operations in a variety of weather conditions. Too often this isn't the case and a sufficiently planned landing fuel can quickly degenerate into a less-than-adequate; or worse; emergency fuel landing situation. With 3 runways; good weather; and operating on time; it's hard to understand why RNAV arrivals into SEA are proving ineffective when we're consistently vectored off of the planned arrival and assigned slower speeds 100 NM from the airport. Modernization of our antiquated ATC system is an imperative if we're to maintain a high level of aviation safety. Today's arrival was very uncomfortable to put it bluntly. I feel like even though we thoughtfully planned and discussed all relevant threats and considerations; we were still funneled into a potentially very precarious situation.Caused by poor RNAV arrival design/traffic congestion.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.