Narrative:

Unsolicited fuel emergency during diversion. We departed ind with 9000 pounds of fuel (minimum fuel = 7858 pounds) en route to lga. Upon reaching lga, we discovered that numerous aircraft went missed or diverted due to high winds at lga. After lengthy vectors we shot and missed the localizer runway 31 at lga and diverted to ewr. Landing in ewr, we were surprised to find the crash fire rescue equipment equipment awaiting our arrival. We came to learn that new york approach control declared a fuel emergency after misinterping our request for direct vectors at ewr, to conserve our remaining fuel, as a fuel emergency. Ewr was chosen as our diversion for several reasons: 1) it was a legal WX alternate with the winds right down runway 29. This allowed for ewr arrs and diverted lga traffic to land. 2) it was nearby. This was important when considering our fuel on board. Fuel indications were erratic due to the turbulence. We had an increased fuel burn associated with: slowing to 160 KTS with lengthy initial vectors to ILS runway 22 lga (which we discontinued due to previous aircraft missing with windshear). Revectored localizer runway 31 between 3000-4000 ft for approximately 30 mins. (During these vectors we spoke intermittently with our dispatch, making them aware of the winds and our low altitude vectors. They ran some numbers and our last conversation indicated ewr would work the best with the winds down runway 29.) shot and missed the localizer 31 due to windshear. After the miss, we checked on with approach. We asked for direct vectors to avoid lengthy vectors and possibly burning into our minimum fuel. An average of the erratic fuel quantity was approximately 1 - 1 1/2 hours, which we passed along to approach. 3) it was convenient for our passenger. They were easily transported to new york and were served by our company station. After deplaning, we spoke with an FAA inspector and he indicated that approach sometimes declares a fuel emergency without a pilot request and that we shouldn't expect to hear anything further from this event. In conclusion, I believe all actions taken, by us and the controllers, were with the safety of flight being paramount and the most conservative alternative available.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APCH CTLR DECLARED AN EMER FOR AN EMB145 WHEN THE FLC REQUESTED FOR A DIRECT FLT TO ALTERNATE ARPT DUE TO PROJECTED MINIMUM FUEL STATUS IF THEY HAD TO HOLD AND DELAYED FURTHER THAN THEY ALREADY HAD BEEN.

Narrative: UNSOLICITED FUEL EMER DURING DIVERSION. WE DEPARTED IND WITH 9000 LBS OF FUEL (MINIMUM FUEL = 7858 LBS) ENRTE TO LGA. UPON REACHING LGA, WE DISCOVERED THAT NUMEROUS ACFT WENT MISSED OR DIVERTED DUE TO HIGH WINDS AT LGA. AFTER LENGTHY VECTORS WE SHOT AND MISSED THE LOC RWY 31 AT LGA AND DIVERTED TO EWR. LNDG IN EWR, WE WERE SURPRISED TO FIND THE CFR EQUIP AWAITING OUR ARR. WE CAME TO LEARN THAT NEW YORK APCH CTL DECLARED A FUEL EMER AFTER MISINTERPING OUR REQUEST FOR DIRECT VECTORS AT EWR, TO CONSERVE OUR REMAINING FUEL, AS A FUEL EMER. EWR WAS CHOSEN AS OUR DIVERSION FOR SEVERAL REASONS: 1) IT WAS A LEGAL WX ALTERNATE WITH THE WINDS RIGHT DOWN RWY 29. THIS ALLOWED FOR EWR ARRS AND DIVERTED LGA TFC TO LAND. 2) IT WAS NEARBY. THIS WAS IMPORTANT WHEN CONSIDERING OUR FUEL ON BOARD. FUEL INDICATIONS WERE ERRATIC DUE TO THE TURB. WE HAD AN INCREASED FUEL BURN ASSOCIATED WITH: SLOWING TO 160 KTS WITH LENGTHY INITIAL VECTORS TO ILS RWY 22 LGA (WHICH WE DISCONTINUED DUE TO PREVIOUS ACFT MISSING WITH WINDSHEAR). REVECTORED LOC RWY 31 BTWN 3000-4000 FT FOR APPROX 30 MINS. (DURING THESE VECTORS WE SPOKE INTERMITTENTLY WITH OUR DISPATCH, MAKING THEM AWARE OF THE WINDS AND OUR LOW ALT VECTORS. THEY RAN SOME NUMBERS AND OUR LAST CONVERSATION INDICATED EWR WOULD WORK THE BEST WITH THE WINDS DOWN RWY 29.) SHOT AND MISSED THE LOC 31 DUE TO WINDSHEAR. AFTER THE MISS, WE CHKED ON WITH APCH. WE ASKED FOR DIRECT VECTORS TO AVOID LENGTHY VECTORS AND POSSIBLY BURNING INTO OUR MINIMUM FUEL. AN AVERAGE OF THE ERRATIC FUEL QUANTITY WAS APPROX 1 - 1 1/2 HRS, WHICH WE PASSED ALONG TO APCH. 3) IT WAS CONVENIENT FOR OUR PAX. THEY WERE EASILY TRANSPORTED TO NEW YORK AND WERE SERVED BY OUR COMPANY STATION. AFTER DEPLANING, WE SPOKE WITH AN FAA INSPECTOR AND HE INDICATED THAT APCH SOMETIMES DECLARES A FUEL EMER WITHOUT A PLT REQUEST AND THAT WE SHOULDN'T EXPECT TO HEAR ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THIS EVENT. IN CONCLUSION, I BELIEVE ALL ACTIONS TAKEN, BY US AND THE CTLRS, WERE WITH THE SAFETY OF FLT BEING PARAMOUNT AND THE MOST CONSERVATIVE ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE.

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.