Narrative:

Flight of 2 experimental biplanes. Both high time professional pilots. Reported 6 mi northwest of airport with ATIS. Told to 'report 2 mi north on final, cleared for straight in approach'. I was flight leader, wingman had informed me 25 mi from airport that he would be arriving with min 5 gal of fuel (30 mins) and wanted to go direct to final approach. When 4 mi from airport, an experimental jet in overhead pattern in the break. Immediately determined that there was going to be a conflict with that traffic. When my flight was 2 1/2 mi from airport, tower controller cleared jet to land from a position abeam downwind. I immediately stated that my flight was '2 mi final, min fuel'. The jet immediately responded with, 'I'll extend you, go first'. I said, 'thanks'. Tower controller cleared my flight to land #1, jet was told to depart and re- enter initial for the overhead. Discussions with the tower controller after landing brought out a very disturbing set of statements. He said, among other things, that we 'used that min fuel trick' to 'cut the jet out of the pattern'. He also stated that 'min fuel doesn't mean anything to me'. It is apparent to me that either this controller has a serious stress problem and should be relieved of duty to a less stressful position or the FAA has completely failed to learn anything and take corrective action on the air carrier crash. Supplemental information from acn 183566: an experimental jet trainer was ahead of us doing an overhead pattern. Tower cleared him to land in the break approaching midfield downwind as we were trying to call 2 mi final. During the same broadcast he told us to square our turn to final, obviously not looking to determine where we were. Lead told tower 'we were already on final and one of us was at min fuel'. Tower finally cleared us to land and requested we call them on the phone. Lead called and was threatened with FAA action against him. Lead said 'pull the tapes' and hung up. I physically went to the tower to try to cooperate and resolve the situation. The controller was extremely antagonistic and accused us of pulling the 'min fuel trick' to try and 'cut the jet out of the pattern'. He later stated that 'min fuel meant nothing to him'. I believe the controller has an attitude contrary to aircraft safety.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THE CTLR CHALLENGES USE OF 'MIN FUEL' STATEMENT.

Narrative: FLT OF 2 EXPERIMENTAL BIPLANES. BOTH HIGH TIME PROFESSIONAL PLTS. RPTED 6 MI NW OF ARPT WITH ATIS. TOLD TO 'RPT 2 MI N ON FINAL, CLRED FOR STRAIGHT IN APCH'. I WAS FLT LEADER, WINGMAN HAD INFORMED ME 25 MI FROM ARPT THAT HE WOULD BE ARRIVING WITH MIN 5 GAL OF FUEL (30 MINS) AND WANTED TO GO DIRECT TO FINAL APCH. WHEN 4 MI FROM ARPT, AN EXPERIMENTAL JET IN OVERHEAD PATTERN IN THE BREAK. IMMEDIATELY DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A CONFLICT WITH THAT TFC. WHEN MY FLT WAS 2 1/2 MI FROM ARPT, TWR CTLR CLRED JET TO LAND FROM A POS ABEAM DOWNWIND. I IMMEDIATELY STATED THAT MY FLT WAS '2 MI FINAL, MIN FUEL'. THE JET IMMEDIATELY RESPONDED WITH, 'I'LL EXTEND YOU, GO FIRST'. I SAID, 'THANKS'. TWR CTLR CLRED MY FLT TO LAND #1, JET WAS TOLD TO DEPART AND RE- ENTER INITIAL FOR THE OVERHEAD. DISCUSSIONS WITH THE TWR CTLR AFTER LNDG BROUGHT OUT A VERY DISTURBING SET OF STATEMENTS. HE SAID, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT WE 'USED THAT MIN FUEL TRICK' TO 'CUT THE JET OUT OF THE PATTERN'. HE ALSO STATED THAT 'MIN FUEL DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING TO ME'. IT IS APPARENT TO ME THAT EITHER THIS CTLR HAS A SERIOUS STRESS PROBLEM AND SHOULD BE RELIEVED OF DUTY TO A LESS STRESSFUL POS OR THE FAA HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO LEARN ANYTHING AND TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION ON THE ACR CRASH. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 183566: AN EXPERIMENTAL JET TRAINER WAS AHEAD OF US DOING AN OVERHEAD PATTERN. TWR CLRED HIM TO LAND IN THE BREAK APCHING MIDFIELD DOWNWIND AS WE WERE TRYING TO CALL 2 MI FINAL. DURING THE SAME BROADCAST HE TOLD US TO SQUARE OUR TURN TO FINAL, OBVIOUSLY NOT LOOKING TO DETERMINE WHERE WE WERE. LEAD TOLD TWR 'WE WERE ALREADY ON FINAL AND ONE OF US WAS AT MIN FUEL'. TWR FINALLY CLRED US TO LAND AND REQUESTED WE CALL THEM ON THE PHONE. LEAD CALLED AND WAS THREATENED WITH FAA ACTION AGAINST HIM. LEAD SAID 'PULL THE TAPES' AND HUNG UP. I PHYSICALLY WENT TO THE TWR TO TRY TO COOPERATE AND RESOLVE THE SITUATION. THE CTLR WAS EXTREMELY ANTAGONISTIC AND ACCUSED US OF PULLING THE 'MIN FUEL TRICK' TO TRY AND 'CUT THE JET OUT OF THE PATTERN'. HE LATER STATED THAT 'MIN FUEL MEANT NOTHING TO HIM'. I BELIEVE THE CTLR HAS AN ATTITUDE CONTRARY TO ACFT SAFETY.

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.