Narrative:

[I had] just taken position during a military IFR recovery to the ILS runway xx approach. The controller in charge and controller that I had relieved both pointed out to me the compression between 2/F15's and the preceding flight on the final for the ILS runway xx at a nearby air force base. I acknowledged their concern and issued instructions to the F-15 flight to reduce their speed. Having seen fighters on the IFR recovery before; I watched the situation for a few moments to see if the speed reduction would be enough. When I determined that the required spacing on final could no longer be ensured to the threshold; I issued break out instructions to the flight; cancelled their approach clearance and issued a heading of 270 and an altitude of 3000'. The F-15's responded that he did not have IFR fuel and did not acknowledge the break-out. I re-iterated the break out instructions and again received a response including information about minimum IFR fuel. My controller in charge at this point coordinated with the military tower; I do not know the exact coordination; but I believe it was to inform the military controllers that the F-15's would be continuing despite the potential loss of separation. I informed the flight that he was still cleared the approach; and switched him to the tower (the flight had not deviated at all from the profile of the approach). A few moments later my controller in charge informed me that the flight would be missed approach back to me; but that his wing man had landed. The remaining F-15 reported his missed approach; was radar identified; vectored around for another ILS runway xx approach; and landed without further incident. Recommendation had the flight clearly declared an emergency it would have alleviated my repeated attempts to break him off the approach and immediately focused attention to coordinating with the military as appropriate. Instead; the aircraft was continuously commenting on IFR reserves and fuel requirements which are not the responsibility of ATC. I would have simply declared the aircraft an emergency earlier had the aircraft communicated they would be unable to accept a missed approach procedure due to fuel; but comments about minimum fuel and IFR reserves do not immediately constitute an emergency to me as an air traffic controller. Rather; they imply that no undue delay can be accepted. Is a break-out an example of 'undue delay'; I suppose that could be argued. Clearly; the aircraft was aware of the developing situation and had not communicated it to ATC. A controller cannot be expected to know which aircraft can and cannot accept a break-out without being informed by the aircraft of fuel situations which could develop into emergency situations.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON controller described a confused event when trying to break out a flight of two F-15 aircraft because of a separation issue; the flight refusing because of fuel issues; the reporter indicating involved communication was less than clear.

Narrative: [I had] just taken position during a military IFR recovery to the ILS Runway XX approach. The CIC and Controller that I had relieved both pointed out to me the compression between 2/F15's and the preceding flight on the final for the ILS Runway XX at a nearby Air Force Base. I acknowledged their concern and issued instructions to the F-15 flight to reduce their speed. Having seen fighters on the IFR recovery before; I watched the situation for a few moments to see if the speed reduction would be enough. When I determined that the required spacing on final could no longer be ensured to the threshold; I issued break out instructions to the flight; cancelled their approach clearance and issued a heading of 270 and an altitude of 3000'. The F-15's responded that he did not have IFR fuel and did not acknowledge the break-out. I re-iterated the break out instructions and again received a response including information about minimum IFR fuel. My CIC at this point coordinated with the Military Tower; I do not know the exact coordination; but I believe it was to inform the Military Controllers that the F-15's would be continuing despite the potential loss of separation. I informed the flight that he was still cleared the approach; and switched him to the Tower (the flight had not deviated at all from the profile of the approach). A few moments later my CIC informed me that the flight would be missed approach back to me; but that his wing man had landed. The remaining F-15 reported his missed approach; was RADAR identified; vectored around for another ILS Runway XX approach; and landed without further incident. Recommendation had the flight clearly declared an emergency it would have alleviated my repeated attempts to break him off the approach and immediately focused attention to coordinating with the military as appropriate. Instead; the aircraft was continuously commenting on IFR reserves and fuel requirements which are not the responsibility of ATC. I would have simply declared the aircraft an emergency earlier had the aircraft communicated they would be unable to accept a missed approach procedure due to fuel; but comments about minimum fuel and IFR reserves do not immediately constitute an emergency to me as an air traffic controller. Rather; they imply that no undue delay can be accepted. Is a break-out an example of 'undue delay'; I suppose that could be argued. Clearly; the aircraft was aware of the developing situation and had not communicated it to ATC. A controller cannot be expected to know which aircraft can and cannot accept a break-out without being informed by the aircraft of fuel situations which could develop into emergency situations.

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.