Narrative:

Departed ord to cvg, fuel had been increased from 13900 pounds to 15000 pounds and as we arrived in the cvg area we were advised that approximately 10 aircraft were ahead of us with windshear in the area. We were given holding instructions over milan intersection (35 northwest cvg 29 DME) at 12000 ft. Ride in clouds was moderate chop. After a short while we were vectored for runway 18R but then vectored south for a runway 36L approach due to a windshift (frontal passage) ride remained moderate chop to light turbulence. Approaching the FAF the aircraft ahead reported winds from the west at 50 KTS and with the radar showing mostly red and magenta, we elected to abandon the approach and divert to sdf with fuel at 8300 pounds (alternate fuel burn was 2500 pounds) upon arrival at sdf approachs were in progress but WX was similar to cvg (frontal passage) was becoming a factor. Our fuel was now 6500 pounds and we declared a minimum fuel situation. We were told that we would be #5 in the sequence with about a 15 min delay. They also told us that lexington airport WX (50-60 mi east) was holding okay. We felt the delay from a fuel standpoint was unacceptable in the event that the WX would further deteriorate and the possibility of missed approach may not be possible. Therefore in the interest of safety we declared an emergency due to minimum fuel (6300 pounds). We then were able to make a normal approach and landing. We blocked at the gate with (5300 pounds) on the fuel. I believe that had we had touchscreen ACARS on board we would have been able to get instant WX and better communication with dispatch. A minimum fuel situation should have provided 'priority handling by ATC' but for unknown reason it wasn't and we had no alternative but to declare emergency. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states he is appreciative of the call to inform him of the actual meaning of the term 'minimum fuel.' he was not aware of this before this incident. He stated that his company has rewritten the company manual to reflect the true meaning of minimum fuel and help avoid confusion in the future. The company emphasizes that the term is advisory only and does not require any ATC action.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-200 FLC ENCOUNTERS WX DELAYS. DUE TO LOW FUEL CONCERNS THEY DIVERT TO ALTERNATE. AFTER MINIMUM FUEL ADVISORY, THEY DECLARE AN EMER.

Narrative: DEPARTED ORD TO CVG, FUEL HAD BEEN INCREASED FROM 13900 LBS TO 15000 LBS AND AS WE ARRIVED IN THE CVG AREA WE WERE ADVISED THAT APPROX 10 ACFT WERE AHEAD OF US WITH WINDSHEAR IN THE AREA. WE WERE GIVEN HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS OVER MILAN INTXN (35 NW CVG 29 DME) AT 12000 FT. RIDE IN CLOUDS WAS MODERATE CHOP. AFTER A SHORT WHILE WE WERE VECTORED FOR RWY 18R BUT THEN VECTORED S FOR A RWY 36L APCH DUE TO A WINDSHIFT (FRONTAL PASSAGE) RIDE REMAINED MODERATE CHOP TO LIGHT TURB. APCHING THE FAF THE ACFT AHEAD RPTED WINDS FROM THE W AT 50 KTS AND WITH THE RADAR SHOWING MOSTLY RED AND MAGENTA, WE ELECTED TO ABANDON THE APCH AND DIVERT TO SDF WITH FUEL AT 8300 LBS (ALTERNATE FUEL BURN WAS 2500 LBS) UPON ARR AT SDF APCHS WERE IN PROGRESS BUT WX WAS SIMILAR TO CVG (FRONTAL PASSAGE) WAS BECOMING A FACTOR. OUR FUEL WAS NOW 6500 LBS AND WE DECLARED A MINIMUM FUEL SIT. WE WERE TOLD THAT WE WOULD BE #5 IN THE SEQUENCE WITH ABOUT A 15 MIN DELAY. THEY ALSO TOLD US THAT LEXINGTON ARPT WX (50-60 MI E) WAS HOLDING OKAY. WE FELT THE DELAY FROM A FUEL STANDPOINT WAS UNACCEPTABLE IN THE EVENT THAT THE WX WOULD FURTHER DETERIORATE AND THE POSSIBILITY OF MISSED APCH MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY WE DECLARED AN EMER DUE TO MINIMUM FUEL (6300 LBS). WE THEN WERE ABLE TO MAKE A NORMAL APCH AND LNDG. WE BLOCKED AT THE GATE WITH (5300 LBS) ON THE FUEL. I BELIEVE THAT HAD WE HAD TOUCHSCREEN ACARS ON BOARD WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET INSTANT WX AND BETTER COM WITH DISPATCH. A MINIMUM FUEL SIT SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED 'PRIORITY HANDLING BY ATC' BUT FOR UNKNOWN REASON IT WASN'T AND WE HAD NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DECLARE EMER. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES HE IS APPRECIATIVE OF THE CALL TO INFORM HIM OF THE ACTUAL MEANING OF THE TERM 'MINIMUM FUEL.' HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS BEFORE THIS INCIDENT. HE STATED THAT HIS COMPANY HAS REWRITTEN THE COMPANY MANUAL TO REFLECT THE TRUE MEANING OF MINIMUM FUEL AND HELP AVOID CONFUSION IN THE FUTURE. THE COMPANY EMPHASIZES THAT THE TERM IS ADVISORY ONLY AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ATC ACTION.

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.