Narrative:

We were operating originally scheduled flight. Just as we started our descent; we received an ACARS message from dispatch to come up on VHF. The captain tuned the number two radio and handled the communications with dispatch. The captain told me due to the snow and having two deice trucks broken at our destination; they had wanted us to continue to our next destination. I immediately got out the performance numbers from the present position to the next destination. The numbers showed us landing with 4;000 pounds of fuel. I also sent an ACARS message to get the weather. Both the metar and taf showed the destination as VFR. Without discussing other options; the captain got on the radio with ATC and told them we'd like to divert. I told him that it was going to be tight on fuel. He just kept saying that we are fine. When we got our routing to divert; it was an ATC clearance present position; the destination NAVAID; and then the arrival to the airport. With this route in the FMC; it showed our arrival fuel at 3;800 pounds of fuel. I asked the captain if he wanted to declare minimum fuel. He said no. I told him that the FMC is showing us landing at 3.8 and that is below the 4.0 minimum for landing. The fom requirement is 4.0 and if we land below 4.0; we are required to declare minimum fuel. The captain stated that we don't have the correct winds plugged in and we should get direct up the road. He also stated the arrival weather was VFR; so we were fine. I wanted to get the point across to ATC so on our clearance to center; I asked direct to the last fix on the arrival and stated that we were at minimum fuel. We received direct and also climbed from fl 400 to fl 410. We were updating the FMC with current wind conditions and it showed us going from in between 3.8 and 4.0 arrival fuel. When handed over to approach control; I stated to ATC that we are at minimum fuel and would appreciate direct to the field or to the final approach fix. Approach gave us a heading then asked which runway we'd prefer. I stated first available or 31 if you can work us in. He then gave us a clearance direct to the final approach fix for 31. We landed at 3.7 and taxied to the gate. After shutdown; we had 3.6 on the fuel gauges. In conclusion; since I had unsuccessfully been able to convince the captain to actually state we are; 'declaring minimum fuel' I still got on the radio and stated we were at minimum fuel. The captain and I disagreed about my stating this and we had a discussion about it after we were done for the day. This is a communication error between the captain and me. I had wished the captain was more receptive to my interpretation of the rules. I believe highly in crew communication and we had a CRM breakdown over this issue. Since I gave ATC the heads-up about our fuel situation they gave us direct clearances; a higher altitude; and direct to the final approach fix for 31. I am glad I stated that we were at minimum fuel since we landed above the far minimum; but we were below the 4.0 required by the fom. I think there needs to be better communication between the crew about the intentions of the crew during a diversion. I think that even if the FMC is showing landing at 4.0 on the fuel that the crew should declare minimum fuel. There was a definite breakdown in CRM about the statement of declaring minimum fuel and the interpretations of the rule between the captain and myself. I appreciated the direct route clearances from ATC and the higher altitude to conserve fuel. ATC helped us out when I gave them a heads- up about our fuel issue.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737 diverted because of weather and FMC calculated landing fuel became less than 4;000 pounds. The Captain did not want to declare minimum fuel so the First Officer did and the aircraft landed with 3;700 pounds.

Narrative: We were operating originally scheduled flight. Just as we started our descent; we received an ACARS message from Dispatch to come up on VHF. The Captain tuned the number two radio and handled the communications with Dispatch. The Captain told me due to the snow and having two deice trucks broken at our destination; they had wanted us to continue to our next destination. I immediately got out the performance numbers from the present position to the next destination. The numbers showed us landing with 4;000 pounds of fuel. I also sent an ACARS message to get the weather. Both the METAR and TAF showed the destination as VFR. Without discussing other options; the Captain got on the radio with ATC and told them we'd like to divert. I told him that it was going to be tight on fuel. He just kept saying that we are fine. When we got our routing to divert; it was an ATC clearance present position; the destination NAVAID; and then the Arrival to the airport. With this route in the FMC; it showed our arrival fuel at 3;800 pounds of fuel. I asked the Captain if he wanted to declare minimum fuel. He said no. I told him that the FMC is showing us landing at 3.8 and that is below the 4.0 minimum for landing. The FOM requirement is 4.0 and if we land below 4.0; we are required to declare minimum fuel. The Captain stated that we don't have the correct winds plugged in and we should get direct up the road. He also stated the arrival weather was VFR; so we were fine. I wanted to get the point across to ATC so on our clearance to Center; I asked direct to the last fix on the arrival and stated that we were at minimum fuel. We received direct and also climbed from FL 400 to FL 410. We were updating the FMC with current wind conditions and it showed us going from in between 3.8 and 4.0 arrival fuel. When handed over to Approach Control; I stated to ATC that we are at minimum fuel and would appreciate direct to the field or to the final approach fix. Approach gave us a heading then asked which runway we'd prefer. I stated first available or 31 if you can work us in. He then gave us a clearance direct to the final approach fix for 31. We landed at 3.7 and taxied to the gate. After shutdown; we had 3.6 on the fuel gauges. In conclusion; since I had unsuccessfully been able to convince the Captain to actually state we are; 'Declaring minimum fuel' I still got on the radio and stated we were at minimum fuel. The Captain and I disagreed about my stating this and we had a discussion about it after we were done for the day. This is a communication error between the Captain and me. I had wished the Captain was more receptive to my interpretation of the rules. I believe highly in Crew communication and we had a CRM breakdown over this issue. Since I gave ATC the heads-up about our fuel situation they gave us direct clearances; a higher altitude; and direct to the final approach fix for 31. I am glad I stated that we were at minimum fuel since we landed above the FAR minimum; but we were below the 4.0 required by the FOM. I think there needs to be better communication between the Crew about the intentions of the Crew during a diversion. I think that even if the FMC is showing landing at 4.0 on the fuel that the Crew should declare minimum fuel. There was a definite breakdown in CRM about the statement of declaring minimum fuel and the interpretations of the rule between the Captain and myself. I appreciated the direct route clearances from ATC and the higher altitude to conserve fuel. ATC helped us out when I gave them a heads- up about our fuel issue.

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.