Narrative:

Minimum fuel was declared after an unexpected runway change while being vectored for approach to ewr. Flight from msy to ewr. Planned flight time 2 hours, 16 mins at FL370. Planned fuel burn of 14.8 gals. Fuel on board at takeoff was 30.8 gals. We were kept at FL290 by ATC for traffic, then given a climb fists to FL310, then FL350 about 30 mins before descent into ewr. ATIS information gave ILS approach 22 circle to land runway 39. After robinsville we were descended to 6000' and slowed to 180 KTS. The next ATIS gave landing runway as 22, then ATIS was silent for about 15 mins. We had a #1 fuel gauge inoperative and our fuel status was good for the expected sequence into ewr, even with the extra fuel burned at lower altitude during cruise and during the vectors. We were about 18 NM north of teb on dog leg to final when we were given a vector to the northwest and told to expect runway 4R. After 2 requests for runway 29, with a fuel gauge inoperative making accurate fuel status difficult and 6500' EST (45 mins) remaining, we declared a minimum fuel status. We were not in a position to accept excessive vectors to runway 4. We were given immediate vectors for a visibility approach to runway 29 and landed west/O incident. No emergency was declared. There was no reason to believe that a runway change from 22 to 4 was in the works because of ATIS information or WX forecast, and fuel was adequate for the approach and landing ATC told us to expect until the vector away from the final approach to runway 22. With continued vectors away from the airport it became rapidly apparent we could not continue to the end of the line for an approach to runway 4. The fact that we had an inoperative fuel gauge and could not accurately determine our exact fuel status only aggravated the situation. Had we completed the approach to runway 22 we would have landed with the required fuel reserve. The flight was planned and executed within the requirements of far and prudent judgement. Even given the extra fuel burned because of lower altitudes, climbs and slower speeds required by ATC, we had the fuel to comply with far's while complying with ATC requests. We were at no time told to expect a runway change. One cannot plan for every event, that is why we had minimum fuel procedures.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT DECLARED MINIMUM FUEL WHEN AFTER A LONG VECTOR TO A PLANNED RWY A RWY CHANGE WAS MADE THAT WOULD INVOLVE MORE VECTORING FOR POSITION.

Narrative: MINIMUM FUEL WAS DECLARED AFTER AN UNEXPECTED RWY CHANGE WHILE BEING VECTORED FOR APCH TO EWR. FLT FROM MSY TO EWR. PLANNED FLT TIME 2 HRS, 16 MINS AT FL370. PLANNED FUEL BURN OF 14.8 GALS. FUEL ON BOARD AT TKOF WAS 30.8 GALS. WE WERE KEPT AT FL290 BY ATC FOR TFC, THEN GIVEN A CLB FISTS TO FL310, THEN FL350 ABOUT 30 MINS BEFORE DSNT INTO EWR. ATIS INFO GAVE ILS APCH 22 CIRCLE TO LAND RWY 39. AFTER ROBINSVILLE WE WERE DSNDED TO 6000' AND SLOWED TO 180 KTS. THE NEXT ATIS GAVE LNDG RWY AS 22, THEN ATIS WAS SILENT FOR ABOUT 15 MINS. WE HAD A #1 FUEL GAUGE INOP AND OUR FUEL STATUS WAS GOOD FOR THE EXPECTED SEQUENCE INTO EWR, EVEN WITH THE EXTRA FUEL BURNED AT LOWER ALT DURING CRUISE AND DURING THE VECTORS. WE WERE ABOUT 18 NM N OF TEB ON DOG LEG TO FINAL WHEN WE WERE GIVEN A VECTOR TO THE NW AND TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 4R. AFTER 2 REQUESTS FOR RWY 29, WITH A FUEL GAUGE INOP MAKING ACCURATE FUEL STATUS DIFFICULT AND 6500' EST (45 MINS) REMAINING, WE DECLARED A MINIMUM FUEL STATUS. WE WERE NOT IN A POS TO ACCEPT EXCESSIVE VECTORS TO RWY 4. WE WERE GIVEN IMMEDIATE VECTORS FOR A VIS APCH TO RWY 29 AND LANDED W/O INCIDENT. NO EMER WAS DECLARED. THERE WAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A RWY CHANGE FROM 22 TO 4 WAS IN THE WORKS BECAUSE OF ATIS INFO OR WX FORECAST, AND FUEL WAS ADEQUATE FOR THE APCH AND LNDG ATC TOLD US TO EXPECT UNTIL THE VECTOR AWAY FROM THE FINAL APCH TO RWY 22. WITH CONTINUED VECTORS AWAY FROM THE ARPT IT BECAME RAPIDLY APPARENT WE COULD NOT CONTINUE TO THE END OF THE LINE FOR AN APCH TO RWY 4. THE FACT THAT WE HAD AN INOP FUEL GAUGE AND COULD NOT ACCURATELY DETERMINE OUR EXACT FUEL STATUS ONLY AGGRAVATED THE SITUATION. HAD WE COMPLETED THE APCH TO RWY 22 WE WOULD HAVE LANDED WITH THE REQUIRED FUEL RESERVE. THE FLT WAS PLANNED AND EXECUTED WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF FAR AND PRUDENT JUDGEMENT. EVEN GIVEN THE EXTRA FUEL BURNED BECAUSE OF LOWER ALTS, CLBS AND SLOWER SPDS REQUIRED BY ATC, WE HAD THE FUEL TO COMPLY WITH FAR'S WHILE COMPLYING WITH ATC REQUESTS. WE WERE AT NO TIME TOLD TO EXPECT A RWY CHANGE. ONE CANNOT PLAN FOR EVERY EVENT, THAT IS WHY WE HAD MINIMUM FUEL PROCS.

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.