Narrative:

I was the first officer on board flight from denver to newark international airport. The forecast WX in newark was VFR and the flight was dispatched with the appropriate amount of fuel. Approaching slate run VOR the flight switched to ny center and was instructed to slow down with off course vectoring to follow for spacing into newark. After extensive vectoring our fuel on board was approaching a min state. Approaching hayed intersection (williamsport VOR 118/35) we advised ny center we were min fuel and requested priority handling. Ny center acknowledged and said they would pass it along to the next controller. Again the flight switched controllers and again told to decrease speed. The captain restated we were min fuel and again requested priority handling. The controller stated with ensuing vectoring we were approximately 70 mi from newark. It was quickly calculated that if we flew the route directed by ATC we would have been in an emergency fuel situation. Approaching broadway VOR again declaring min fuel and requesting a vector direct to newark, the controller told us to head 180 degree keeping us in the normal traffic flow and not toward newark as requested. The captain stated that was unacceptable and was proceeding direct newark. The controller asked if we were declaring an emergency and the captain responded 'that depends on how much more vectoring we have to do.' the controller then stated he would declare an emergency for us and directed the flight to proceed direct to newark. The flight proceeded as cleared and an uneventful landing was made at newark. Corrective action. If at the outset when initially approaching newark the flight had been put into hold with an expected further clearance time, we could have quickly ascertained there was not sufficient fuel on board and would have diverted precluding being lead into an emergency fuel situation. Its obvious declaring min fuel and requesting priority handling means nothing. When the controller declared an emergency for us, we were not in an emergency situation, however if we would have flown the course as directed by ATC we would have been. The controllers apparently did not understand our fuel status and chose to disregard our request for priority handling. The FAA needs to re- emphasize the meaning of min fuel and request for priority handling. It's obvious the only way to receive priority handling is to declare an emergency.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR FLC HAD MIN FUEL AFTER EXTENSIVE VECTORING. ATC DECLARES EMER.

Narrative: I WAS THE FO ON BOARD FLT FROM DENVER TO NEWARK INTL ARPT. THE FORECAST WX IN NEWARK WAS VFR AND THE FLT WAS DISPATCHED WITH THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF FUEL. APCHING SLATE RUN VOR THE FLT SWITCHED TO NY CTR AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO SLOW DOWN WITH OFF COURSE VECTORING TO FOLLOW FOR SPACING INTO NEWARK. AFTER EXTENSIVE VECTORING OUR FUEL ON BOARD WAS APCHING A MIN STATE. APCHING HAYED INTXN (WILLIAMSPORT VOR 118/35) WE ADVISED NY CTR WE WERE MIN FUEL AND REQUESTED PRIORITY HANDLING. NY CTR ACKNOWLEDGED AND SAID THEY WOULD PASS IT ALONG TO THE NEXT CTLR. AGAIN THE FLT SWITCHED CTLRS AND AGAIN TOLD TO DECREASE SPD. THE CAPT RESTATED WE WERE MIN FUEL AND AGAIN REQUESTED PRIORITY HANDLING. THE CTLR STATED WITH ENSUING VECTORING WE WERE APPROX 70 MI FROM NEWARK. IT WAS QUICKLY CALCULATED THAT IF WE FLEW THE RTE DIRECTED BY ATC WE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN AN EMER FUEL SITUATION. APCHING BROADWAY VOR AGAIN DECLARING MIN FUEL AND REQUESTING A VECTOR DIRECT TO NEWARK, THE CTLR TOLD US TO HEAD 180 DEG KEEPING US IN THE NORMAL TFC FLOW AND NOT TOWARD NEWARK AS REQUESTED. THE CAPT STATED THAT WAS UNACCEPTABLE AND WAS PROCEEDING DIRECT NEWARK. THE CTLR ASKED IF WE WERE DECLARING AN EMER AND THE CAPT RESPONDED 'THAT DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH MORE VECTORING WE HAVE TO DO.' THE CTLR THEN STATED HE WOULD DECLARE AN EMER FOR US AND DIRECTED THE FLT TO PROCEED DIRECT TO NEWARK. THE FLT PROCEEDED AS CLRED AND AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG WAS MADE AT NEWARK. CORRECTIVE ACTION. IF AT THE OUTSET WHEN INITIALLY APCHING NEWARK THE FLT HAD BEEN PUT INTO HOLD WITH AN EXPECTED FURTHER CLRNC TIME, WE COULD HAVE QUICKLY ASCERTAINED THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FUEL ON BOARD AND WOULD HAVE DIVERTED PRECLUDING BEING LEAD INTO AN EMER FUEL SITUATION. ITS OBVIOUS DECLARING MIN FUEL AND REQUESTING PRIORITY HANDLING MEANS NOTHING. WHEN THE CTLR DECLARED AN EMER FOR US, WE WERE NOT IN AN EMER SITUATION, HOWEVER IF WE WOULD HAVE FLOWN THE COURSE AS DIRECTED BY ATC WE WOULD HAVE BEEN. THE CTLRS APPARENTLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND OUR FUEL STATUS AND CHOSE TO DISREGARD OUR REQUEST FOR PRIORITY HANDLING. THE FAA NEEDS TO RE- EMPHASIZE THE MEANING OF MIN FUEL AND REQUEST FOR PRIORITY HANDLING. IT'S OBVIOUS THE ONLY WAY TO RECEIVE PRIORITY HANDLING IS TO DECLARE AN EMER.

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.