Narrative:

Prior to arriving in the sfo area; oak center gave us lower for turbulence from FL380 to FL360. Prior to oal; then delay vectors into sfo began. I started to closely watch the fuel situation; as the planned landing fuel on the flight plan was for 6000 pounds. After numerous vectors and finally within 30 miles of the airport; I discussed with my first officer that we need to advise ATC of our fuel state. We declared 'minimum fuel' to the controller. After several more vectors; we advised him we need to head for the airport now. My plan was to either begin the approach now or declare a fuel emergency if needed. We were finally turned onto the approach for an ILS runway 28R and had to slow back to 160 knots. During this speed reduction at 17 miles on final; we received a 'low fuel' EICAS. This was confirmed with the 'fuel configuration' light on the overhead panel. Current fuel was 5500 pounds. Approach and landing were normal; yet we touched down with 4700 pounds of fuel. I would like to add; that everything we did as a crew was to evaluate the flight plan at the beginning of the day and refused a request to take fuel off for a last minute zero fuel payload increase. I asked that the fuel be added. We flew the plan in accordance with normal SOP and at the planned altitude; yet I almost had to divert; and put me in a position that I did not like. ATC needs to understand when we call minimum fuel it means that and stop the extra vectors. It is something that we don't normally use the term and when used; means help us out. Further; dispatch should add a little more fuel for unknown contingencies; especially on a transcon flight. I won't get placed in this situation again.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757-200 FLT CREW DECLARES MINIMUM FUEL AFTER TRANSCON FLT TO SFO ENCOUNTERS MODEST DELAYS.

Narrative: PRIOR TO ARRIVING IN THE SFO AREA; OAK CENTER GAVE US LOWER FOR TURBULENCE FROM FL380 TO FL360. PRIOR TO OAL; THEN DELAY VECTORS INTO SFO BEGAN. I STARTED TO CLOSELY WATCH THE FUEL SITUATION; AS THE PLANNED LANDING FUEL ON THE FLIGHT PLAN WAS FOR 6000 LBS. AFTER NUMEROUS VECTORS AND FINALLY WITHIN 30 MILES OF THE AIRPORT; I DISCUSSED WITH MY FO THAT WE NEED TO ADVISE ATC OF OUR FUEL STATE. WE DECLARED 'MINIMUM FUEL' TO THE CONTROLLER. AFTER SEVERAL MORE VECTORS; WE ADVISED HIM WE NEED TO HEAD FOR THE AIRPORT NOW. MY PLAN WAS TO EITHER BEGIN THE APPROACH NOW OR DECLARE A FUEL EMERGENCY IF NEEDED. WE WERE FINALLY TURNED ONTO THE APPROACH FOR AN ILS RWY 28R AND HAD TO SLOW BACK TO 160 KNOTS. DURING THIS SPEED REDUCTION AT 17 MILES ON FINAL; WE RECEIVED A 'LOW FUEL' EICAS. THIS WAS CONFIRMED WITH THE 'FUEL CONFIG' LIGHT ON THE OVERHEAD PANEL. CURRENT FUEL WAS 5500 LBS. APPROACH AND LANDING WERE NORMAL; YET WE TOUCHED DOWN WITH 4700 LBS OF FUEL. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD; THAT EVERYTHING WE DID AS A CREW WAS TO EVALUATE THE FLIGHT PLAN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY AND REFUSED A REQUEST TO TAKE FUEL OFF FOR A LAST MINUTE ZERO FUEL PAYLOAD INCREASE. I ASKED THAT THE FUEL BE ADDED. WE FLEW THE PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH NORMAL SOP AND AT THE PLANNED ALTITUDE; YET I ALMOST HAD TO DIVERT; AND PUT ME IN A POSITION THAT I DID NOT LIKE. ATC NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND WHEN WE CALL MINIMUM FUEL IT MEANS THAT AND STOP THE EXTRA VECTORS. IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T NORMALLY USE THE TERM AND WHEN USED; MEANS HELP US OUT. FURTHER; DISPATCH SHOULD ADD A LITTLE MORE FUEL FOR UNKNOWN CONTINGENCIES; ESPECIALLY ON A TRANSCON FLIGHT. I WON'T GET PLACED IN THIS SITUATION AGAIN.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.