Narrative:

On the oxi arrival to ord we experienced numerous off course vectors for spacing and sequencing to ord. We consumed all of our dispatch planned hold fuel. About 75 NM out from ord, we were down to 6000 pounds of fuel while still being vectored off course for sequencing. We advised the controller that we were 'minimum fuel.' the controller replied 'what is that telling me?' I replied that I could not accept any further undue delay into ord and did not need to declare an emergency. It seemed that he was not too familiar with the terminology, and did not seem too very receptive to what we were conveying to him. From that point we were vectored into ord and handed off to approach. We were vectored onto an 18 mi final for runway 27L. We landed uneventfully and blocked in with 4.6 (4600 pounds). I looked up the term 'minimum fuel,' and it is a valid phrase that is defined in both the aim, and the pilot/controller glossary. In recent times, I heard another aircraft from another airline declare minimum fuel with ord approach. They received the same kind of response with the same level of sarcasm from the handling controller. I would just like to see if we can make sure that controllers in ZAU and TRACON can be more aware of this term, and treat us more professional in their response when we convey this to them. It's hard enough to have to defend myself over a busy ATC frequency like ZAU. It seemed the only way that I would get real attention is if I had declared an emergency. Bar none, I still think they are among the best controllers in the industry, but do need to take this kind of request with some more thought.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 ON ARR TO ORD EXPERIENCED PHRASEOLOGY CONFLICT WITH ATC REGARDING MINIMUM FUEL STATUS.

Narrative: ON THE OXI ARR TO ORD WE EXPERIENCED NUMEROUS OFF COURSE VECTORS FOR SPACING AND SEQUENCING TO ORD. WE CONSUMED ALL OF OUR DISPATCH PLANNED HOLD FUEL. ABOUT 75 NM OUT FROM ORD, WE WERE DOWN TO 6000 LBS OF FUEL WHILE STILL BEING VECTORED OFF COURSE FOR SEQUENCING. WE ADVISED THE CTLR THAT WE WERE 'MINIMUM FUEL.' THE CTLR REPLIED 'WHAT IS THAT TELLING ME?' I REPLIED THAT I COULD NOT ACCEPT ANY FURTHER UNDUE DELAY INTO ORD AND DID NOT NEED TO DECLARE AN EMER. IT SEEMED THAT HE WAS NOT TOO FAMILIAR WITH THE TERMINOLOGY, AND DID NOT SEEM TOO VERY RECEPTIVE TO WHAT WE WERE CONVEYING TO HIM. FROM THAT POINT WE WERE VECTORED INTO ORD AND HANDED OFF TO APCH. WE WERE VECTORED ONTO AN 18 MI FINAL FOR RWY 27L. WE LANDED UNEVENTFULLY AND BLOCKED IN WITH 4.6 (4600 LBS). I LOOKED UP THE TERM 'MINIMUM FUEL,' AND IT IS A VALID PHRASE THAT IS DEFINED IN BOTH THE AIM, AND THE PLT/CTLR GLOSSARY. IN RECENT TIMES, I HEARD ANOTHER ACFT FROM ANOTHER AIRLINE DECLARE MINIMUM FUEL WITH ORD APCH. THEY RECEIVED THE SAME KIND OF RESPONSE WITH THE SAME LEVEL OF SARCASM FROM THE HANDLING CTLR. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT CTLRS IN ZAU AND TRACON CAN BE MORE AWARE OF THIS TERM, AND TREAT US MORE PROFESSIONAL IN THEIR RESPONSE WHEN WE CONVEY THIS TO THEM. IT'S HARD ENOUGH TO HAVE TO DEFEND MYSELF OVER A BUSY ATC FREQ LIKE ZAU. IT SEEMED THE ONLY WAY THAT I WOULD GET REAL ATTN IS IF I HAD DECLARED AN EMER. BAR NONE, I STILL THINK THEY ARE AMONG THE BEST CTLRS IN THE INDUSTRY, BUT DO NEED TO TAKE THIS KIND OF REQUEST WITH SOME MORE THOUGHT.

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.