Narrative:

Scheduled flight from ord to msy. Just prior to departure we were rerouted by ATC. While enroute to sgf ATC rerouted us again. In discussions with the crew we considered diverting for fuel but it was a severe VFR day so we elected to request a climb to FL370. We also told ATC (not sure if it was kansas city or fort worth center) that we had minimum fuel. We were subsequently handed off to houston center who cleared us to FL310. We asked if he knew of our minimum fuel status and he replied that he had to have separation. I again asked if he knew we had minimum fuel and asked if declaring an emergency would avoid vectors and lower altitude. Upon arrival in msy we were given a telephone number to call the supervisor at houston center. From our discussion I learned that our original declaration of minimum fuel was never passed along to houston center. When I questioned the controller about the descent and WX he knew we were a minimum fuel aircraft. He apparently thought I was 'crying wolf' to avoid a turn and a lower altitude. According to the supervisor they hear 'minimum fuel' 20 times a month from 'other airlines' and have apparently become desensitized to the term. The system has failed if 'other airlines' use this term as a routine way to shave a couple minutes off a flight when they are really not minimum fuel. In the future I'll just divert and get more fuel rather than trust an ATC system that simply can't handle anything out of the ordinary. Callback conversation with the reporter reveled the following information: the flight crew had declared a minimum fuel status to the previous ARTCC center. ZHU ARTCC cleared the aircraft for a vector heading. The reporter replied that he could not accept a vector heading away from destination and if necessary he would declare a fuel emergency. He was asked to call ZHU after landing. During the call to the ZHU supervisor the reporter was told that the preceding ARTCC center had not forwarded the minimum fuel report. Further, the reporter was told that a specific air carrier declared minimum fuel so frequently that the controllers had become somewhat desensitized. The reporter expressed concern that the abuse of the minimum fuel status would lead to fuel emergency or fuel diversions unless corrected.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B727 CREW WAS UNABLE TO GET REQUESTED ROUTING AFTER DECLARING A MINIMUM FUEL STATUS FROM ZHU ARTCC.

Narrative: SCHEDULED FLT FROM ORD TO MSY. JUST PRIOR TO DEP WE WERE REROUTED BY ATC. WHILE ENROUTE TO SGF ATC REROUTED US AGAIN. IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CREW WE CONSIDERED DIVERTING FOR FUEL BUT IT WAS A SEVERE VFR DAY SO WE ELECTED TO REQUEST A CLB TO FL370. WE ALSO TOLD ATC (NOT SURE IF IT WAS KANSAS CITY OR FORT WORTH CTR) THAT WE HAD MINIMUM FUEL. WE WERE SUBSEQUENTLY HANDED OFF TO HOUSTON CTR WHO CLRED US TO FL310. WE ASKED IF HE KNEW OF OUR MINIMUM FUEL STATUS AND HE REPLIED THAT HE HAD TO HAVE SEPARATION. I AGAIN ASKED IF HE KNEW WE HAD MINIMUM FUEL AND ASKED IF DECLARING AN EMER WOULD AVOID VECTORS AND LOWER ALT. UPON ARR IN MSY WE WERE GIVEN A TELEPHONE NUMBER TO CALL THE SUPVR AT HOUSTON CTR. FROM OUR DISCUSSION I LEARNED THAT OUR ORIGINAL DECLARATION OF MINIMUM FUEL WAS NEVER PASSED ALONG TO HOUSTON CTR. WHEN I QUESTIONED THE CTLR ABOUT THE DSCNT AND WX HE KNEW WE WERE A MINIMUM FUEL ACFT. HE APPARENTLY THOUGHT I WAS 'CRYING WOLF' TO AVOID A TURN AND A LOWER ALT. ACCORDING TO THE SUPVR THEY HEAR 'MINIMUM FUEL' 20 TIMES A MONTH FROM 'OTHER AIRLINES' AND HAVE APPARENTLY BECOME DESENSITIZED TO THE TERM. THE SYS HAS FAILED IF 'OTHER AIRLINES' USE THIS TERM AS A ROUTINE WAY TO SHAVE A COUPLE MINUTES OFF A FLT WHEN THEY ARE REALLY NOT MINIMUM FUEL. IN THE FUTURE I'LL JUST DIVERT AND GET MORE FUEL RATHER THAN TRUST AN ATC SYS THAT SIMPLY CAN'T HANDLE ANYTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH THE RPTR REVELED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE FLC HAD DECLARED A MINIMUM FUEL STATUS TO THE PREVIOUS ARTCC CTR. ZHU ARTCC CLRED THE ACFT FOR A VECTOR HDG. THE RPTR REPLIED THAT HE COULD NOT ACCEPT A VECTOR HDG AWAY FROM DEST AND IF NECESSARY HE WOULD DECLARE A FUEL EMER. HE WAS ASKED TO CALL ZHU AFTER LNDG. DURING THE CALL TO THE ZHU SUPVR THE RPTR WAS TOLD THAT THE PRECEDING ARTCC CTR HAD NOT FORWARDED THE MINIMUM FUEL RPT. FURTHER, THE RPTR WAS TOLD THAT A SPECIFIC ACR DECLARED MINIMUM FUEL SO FREQUENTLY THAT THE CTLRS HAD BECOME SOMEWHAT DESENSITIZED. THE RPTR EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THE ABUSE OF THE MINIMUM FUEL STATUS WOULD LEAD TO FUEL EMER OR FUEL DIVERSIONS UNLESS CORRECTED.

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.