Narrative:

Dispatch had added fuel for potential delays due to construction at msp. I added an additional 900 pounds. Flight departed after a slight ATC delay for msp's ground delay program which was lifted. Approaching msp we had to hold due to traffic. We held approximately 25-35 minutes. The arrival had us fly towards the airport for runway 17 but then had an extended downwind of approximately 30 miles. We also had to configure with flaps due to speeds assigned as low as 150 knots. The turn to final and approach were normal. Now projected to land with 4200 lbs. On short final we were told to go around due to some other aircraft that was minimum fuel landing on the crossing runway. The go around was normal. After stabilized in level flight the first officer and I agreed that we would be landing with less than 3000 lbs of fuel which is a number I use to predict 30 minutes of flight time left. We declared emergency fuel with ATC. They said they would fit us in the pattern for a 10 mile base. Although I felt they were handling us a minimum fuel situation I was still O.K. With the extension at this time. We now are getting ECAM warnings about our fuel with the message to land as soon as possible. Turn to final and approach were normal until inside 5 miles when ATC pushed us to keep our speed up for another plane which I believe he said was minimum fuel as well and they did not want him to go around. Then; right after touchdown; they tried to get us to take an early turnoff I didn't plan for and could not make; so we expedited to the next one which was past the crossing runway. Fuel was 2800 lbs and we blocked in at 2400 lbs.I think ATC needs to do more metering of traffic into msp during their construction delays. There were several planes in the pattern that were low or minimum fuel. 30 mile extension with flaps at slow speeds increased our fuel burn. I'm not sure if ATC understood we were emergency and not minimum fuel. If they had asked if we could accept a 10 mile final I would then believe they understood the difference. On final having us fly fast and potentially pushing us to be not in stabilized approach parameters because of other low fuel aircraft wasn't right. If we would have had to go around then; there could definitely have been a truly dangerous situation. Shame on me for allowing it. Lesson learned. Trying to get us to stop abruptly to clear the runway after touching down isn't cool either. I might have been able to accommodate but I need to be told on final before landing so I can plan. Controllers at msp; I believe; are doing their best. But when the overall system allows them to get overwhelmed it is creating problems and pressures for the handlers and issues for the pilots.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Delays associated with airport construction at MSP cause an A320 flight crew to declare a fuel emergency. ATC may have misunderstood the seriousness of their situation.

Narrative: Dispatch had added fuel for potential delays due to construction at MSP. I added an additional 900 pounds. Flight departed after a slight ATC delay for MSP's ground delay program which was lifted. Approaching MSP we had to hold due to traffic. We held approximately 25-35 minutes. The arrival had us fly towards the airport for Runway 17 but then had an extended downwind of approximately 30 miles. We also had to configure with flaps due to speeds assigned as low as 150 knots. The turn to final and approach were normal. Now projected to land with 4200 lbs. On short final we were told to go around due to some other aircraft that was minimum fuel landing on the crossing runway. The go around was normal. After stabilized in level flight the First Officer and I agreed that we would be landing with less than 3000 lbs of fuel which is a number I use to predict 30 minutes of flight time left. We declared emergency fuel with ATC. They said they would fit us in the pattern for a 10 mile base. Although I felt they were handling us a minimum fuel situation I was still O.K. with the extension at this time. We now are getting ECAM warnings about our fuel with the message to land ASAP. Turn to final and approach were normal until inside 5 miles when ATC pushed us to keep our speed up for another plane which I believe he said was minimum fuel as well and they did not want him to go around. Then; right after touchdown; they tried to get us to take an early turnoff I didn't plan for and could not make; so we expedited to the next one which was past the crossing runway. Fuel was 2800 lbs and we blocked in at 2400 lbs.I think ATC needs to do more metering of traffic into MSP during their construction delays. There were several planes in the pattern that were low or minimum fuel. 30 mile extension with flaps at slow speeds increased our fuel burn. I'm not sure if ATC understood we were emergency and not minimum fuel. If they had ASKED if we could accept a 10 mile final I would then believe they understood the difference. On final having us fly fast and potentially pushing us to be not in stabilized approach parameters because of other low fuel aircraft wasn't right. If we would have had to go around then; there could definitely have been a truly dangerous situation. Shame on me for allowing it. Lesson learned. Trying to get us to stop abruptly to clear the runway after touching down isn't cool either. I might have been able to accommodate but I need to be told on final before landing so I can plan. Controllers at MSP; I believe; are doing their best. But when the overall system allows them to get overwhelmed it is creating problems and pressures for the handlers and issues for the pilots.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.