Narrative:

3:18 flight from cozumel, mexico, to chicago O'hare, with sufficient flight plan fuel plus 1200 pounds extra. Declared 'minimum fuel' and then 'emergency' when tower gave go around instructions, inside final approach fix, fully configured for landing, runway 9R. Factors: 1) with flight plan altitude 35000 ft merida (mexico) center assigned 28000 ft then, on entering us, ZHU assigned 27000 ft. 2) south of st louis, ZKC vectored flight well west of course to accommodate sequencing into chicago. Flight was slowed to 250 KTS at altitude, higher aircraft were allowed to pass, flight was quickly cleared to 11000 ft where low altitude vectoring, below clean (flap) speeds began. These events are common on chicago dscnts and approachs. 3) ATIS (8500 ft broken 6 mi in haze) was last reported WX and not updated through any subsequent communications. Actual WX at time of go around was marginal VFR and my belief is that the field (O'hare) was IFR. 4) on go around, controller could not confirm (after 'minimum fuel' declaration) present WX, time for new approach, runway to be used, but was assigning '20 mi final' to aircraft ahead. We declared 'emergency.' 5) several different controllers were using our frequency and my impression was that some were inexperienced and that supervisors were breaking in with instructions. 1 controller attempted to assign us 170 KTS, requiring flaps and extra fuel burn -- we refused. Finally, on base leg to new runway 14R, we were informed (after attempts to get 'short approach') that there were 2 other aircraft with declared emergencys ahead of us on final approach. We complied with 170 KT speed restriction. Later, 160 KTS. Flight landed with less than 8000 pounds fuel. Insufficient to get comfortably or 'legally' to milwaukee alternate. Considerations: kansas city and chicago approach regularly use unusual slow downs, sequencing, and vectoring (including low altitude, at flap required speeds) without due consideration of fuel consequences. It is possible that inexperienced controllers contributed to this situation. Chicago approach was not prepared for the WX conditions. Did not recognize problem soon enough, and did not (at all!) update the ATIS or communicate the significantly deteriorated WX conditions to my flight. At time of my go around, chicago (O'hare approach and tower) was disorganized and unprepared (unable to clearly communicate intentions) for an emergency, or 2, or 3. (And were there others I am unaware of?)

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LGT CAPT DECLARES AN EMER WHEN ATC HANDLING CAUSES MORE THAN PLANNED FUEL CONSUMPTION.

Narrative: 3:18 FLT FROM COZUMEL, MEXICO, TO CHICAGO O'HARE, WITH SUFFICIENT FLT PLAN FUEL PLUS 1200 LBS EXTRA. DECLARED 'MINIMUM FUEL' AND THEN 'EMER' WHEN TWR GAVE GAR INSTRUCTIONS, INSIDE FINAL APCH FIX, FULLY CONFIGURED FOR LNDG, RWY 9R. FACTORS: 1) WITH FLT PLAN ALT 35000 FT MERIDA (MEXICO) CTR ASSIGNED 28000 FT THEN, ON ENTERING US, ZHU ASSIGNED 27000 FT. 2) S OF ST LOUIS, ZKC VECTORED FLT WELL W OF COURSE TO ACCOMMODATE SEQUENCING INTO CHICAGO. FLT WAS SLOWED TO 250 KTS AT ALT, HIGHER ACFT WERE ALLOWED TO PASS, FLT WAS QUICKLY CLRED TO 11000 FT WHERE LOW ALT VECTORING, BELOW CLEAN (FLAP) SPDS BEGAN. THESE EVENTS ARE COMMON ON CHICAGO DSCNTS AND APCHS. 3) ATIS (8500 FT BROKEN 6 MI IN HAZE) WAS LAST RPTED WX AND NOT UPDATED THROUGH ANY SUBSEQUENT COMS. ACTUAL WX AT TIME OF GAR WAS MARGINAL VFR AND MY BELIEF IS THAT THE FIELD (O'HARE) WAS IFR. 4) ON GAR, CTLR COULD NOT CONFIRM (AFTER 'MINIMUM FUEL' DECLARATION) PRESENT WX, TIME FOR NEW APCH, RWY TO BE USED, BUT WAS ASSIGNING '20 MI FINAL' TO ACFT AHEAD. WE DECLARED 'EMER.' 5) SEVERAL DIFFERENT CTLRS WERE USING OUR FREQ AND MY IMPRESSION WAS THAT SOME WERE INEXPERIENCED AND THAT SUPVRS WERE BREAKING IN WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 1 CTLR ATTEMPTED TO ASSIGN US 170 KTS, REQUIRING FLAPS AND EXTRA FUEL BURN -- WE REFUSED. FINALLY, ON BASE LEG TO NEW RWY 14R, WE WERE INFORMED (AFTER ATTEMPTS TO GET 'SHORT APCH') THAT THERE WERE 2 OTHER ACFT WITH DECLARED EMERS AHEAD OF US ON FINAL APCH. WE COMPLIED WITH 170 KT SPD RESTRICTION. LATER, 160 KTS. FLT LANDED WITH LESS THAN 8000 LBS FUEL. INSUFFICIENT TO GET COMFORTABLY OR 'LEGALLY' TO MILWAUKEE ALTERNATE. CONSIDERATIONS: KANSAS CITY AND CHICAGO APCH REGULARLY USE UNUSUAL SLOW DOWNS, SEQUENCING, AND VECTORING (INCLUDING LOW ALT, AT FLAP REQUIRED SPDS) WITHOUT DUE CONSIDERATION OF FUEL CONSEQUENCES. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT INEXPERIENCED CTLRS CONTRIBUTED TO THIS SIT. CHICAGO APCH WAS NOT PREPARED FOR THE WX CONDITIONS. DID NOT RECOGNIZE PROB SOON ENOUGH, AND DID NOT (AT ALL!) UPDATE THE ATIS OR COMMUNICATE THE SIGNIFICANTLY DETERIORATED WX CONDITIONS TO MY FLT. AT TIME OF MY GAR, CHICAGO (O'HARE APCH AND TWR) WAS DISORGANIZED AND UNPREPARED (UNABLE TO CLRLY COMMUNICATE INTENTIONS) FOR AN EMER, OR 2, OR 3. (AND WERE THERE OTHERS I AM UNAWARE OF?)

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.