Narrative:

Arriving in the nyc area, after a flight from narita, we were informed by ny center of 1 hour holding into ewr. Requesting direct to boston, we were told by nyc TRACON there was a change of plans and 'they were gonna take us right on into ewr' and to descend to 4000 ft with a vector heading of 100 degrees. We concurred and were told to contact the next controller for further vectors. The next controller informed us that a direct course to ewr was not available and more vectors would be required. We had circumnaved an area of circuit breaker between our position and ewr, after our radar showed rain with no significant circuit breaker. After being informed of the further vectoring, we requested direct hartford and were told to turn left to 290 and climb to 10000 ft. During that climbing turn we re-entered the circuit breaker area that had intensified and experienced heavy rain, moderate turbulence, static and lightning. 2 INS's seem to tumble, airspeed increased to 300 KTS and the GPWS gave a warning. At the time of the GPWS warning we were climbing at 2000 FPM which was increased to 4-5000 FPM available because of the excess airspeed. The altimeter never showed less than 3800 ft. We then were informed that jfk was available, no longer having 1 hour delays. We declared a 'min fuel condition' and received expeditious handling for an uneventful approach and landing. A cockpit critique after blocking, revealed no reason for the GPWS and no previous indication for the turbulence and rain during our climbing turn. All figures are from recollection and are accurate to the best of my ability. 2 questions come to mind? Can a controller be relied upon when he states that you are 'going right in' without the immediate concurrence of the next controller? Should controllers during a period of circuit breaker's, tune their scopes for WX return in order to better judge the best vector rtes? An emergency was never mentioned in connection with our fuel situation, the first officer, however, erroneously indicated we had only 30 mins fuel remaining. In actuality, we had closer to 45-50 mins remaining, however, the facility seem to treat us as an emergency even though one was not declared or appropriate. Rescue trucks were dispatched for our landing. Possibly various low fuel situations should be clarified and the actions of the facility defined.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WDB WITH MIN FUEL IS PROMISED NO DELAY BY ARTCC BUT WHEN SWITCHED TO TRACON FINDS DELAYS STILL EXIST.

Narrative: ARRIVING IN THE NYC AREA, AFTER A FLT FROM NARITA, WE WERE INFORMED BY NY CENTER OF 1 HR HOLDING INTO EWR. REQUESTING DIRECT TO BOSTON, WE WERE TOLD BY NYC TRACON THERE WAS A CHANGE OF PLANS AND 'THEY WERE GONNA TAKE US RIGHT ON INTO EWR' AND TO DSND TO 4000 FT WITH A VECTOR HDG OF 100 DEGS. WE CONCURRED AND WERE TOLD TO CONTACT THE NEXT CTLR FOR FURTHER VECTORS. THE NEXT CTLR INFORMED US THAT A DIRECT COURSE TO EWR WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND MORE VECTORS WOULD BE REQUIRED. WE HAD CIRCUMNAVED AN AREA OF CB BTWN OUR POS AND EWR, AFTER OUR RADAR SHOWED RAIN WITH NO SIGNIFICANT CB. AFTER BEING INFORMED OF THE FURTHER VECTORING, WE REQUESTED DIRECT HARTFORD AND WERE TOLD TO TURN L TO 290 AND CLB TO 10000 FT. DURING THAT CLBING TURN WE RE-ENTERED THE CB AREA THAT HAD INTENSIFIED AND EXPERIENCED HVY RAIN, MODERATE TURB, STATIC AND LIGHTNING. 2 INS'S SEEM TO TUMBLE, AIRSPD INCREASED TO 300 KTS AND THE GPWS GAVE A WARNING. AT THE TIME OF THE GPWS WARNING WE WERE CLBING AT 2000 FPM WHICH WAS INCREASED TO 4-5000 FPM AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF THE EXCESS AIRSPD. THE ALTIMETER NEVER SHOWED LESS THAN 3800 FT. WE THEN WERE INFORMED THAT JFK WAS AVAILABLE, NO LONGER HAVING 1 HR DELAYS. WE DECLARED A 'MIN FUEL CONDITION' AND RECEIVED EXPEDITIOUS HANDLING FOR AN UNEVENTFUL APCH AND LNDG. A COCKPIT CRITIQUE AFTER BLOCKING, REVEALED NO REASON FOR THE GPWS AND NO PREVIOUS INDICATION FOR THE TURB AND RAIN DURING OUR CLBING TURN. ALL FIGURES ARE FROM RECOLLECTION AND ARE ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. 2 QUESTIONS COME TO MIND? CAN A CTLR BE RELIED UPON WHEN HE STATES THAT YOU ARE 'GOING RIGHT IN' WITHOUT THE IMMEDIATE CONCURRENCE OF THE NEXT CTLR? SHOULD CTLRS DURING A PERIOD OF CB'S, TUNE THEIR SCOPES FOR WX RETURN IN ORDER TO BETTER JUDGE THE BEST VECTOR RTES? AN EMER WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH OUR FUEL SITUATION, THE FO, HOWEVER, ERRONEOUSLY INDICATED WE HAD ONLY 30 MINS FUEL REMAINING. IN ACTUALITY, WE HAD CLOSER TO 45-50 MINS REMAINING, HOWEVER, THE FACILITY SEEM TO TREAT US AS AN EMER EVEN THOUGH ONE WAS NOT DECLARED OR APPROPRIATE. RESCUE TRUCKS WERE DISPATCHED FOR OUR LNDG. POSSIBLY VARIOUS LOW FUEL SITUATIONS SHOULD BE CLARIFIED AND THE ACTIONS OF THE FACILITY DEFINED.

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.