Narrative:

Problem is ATC asked if we would be a WX ship into jfk. A line of trw southeast=southwest just east of jfk. Our alternate was islip, ny. The captain requested not to be turned over to ZBW as we were approaching minimum fuel and did not wish to have to do excessive vectoring. Probably poor use of words; i.e., 'approaching minimum fuel.' but center asked for fuel on board in minutes and then turned us over to ZBW. ZBW again asked us for fuel in minutes and souls on board. They cleared us for approach to jfk and cleared us when able direct to the airport. On final we heard that there was an aircraft on final with a fuel emergency. Upon landing the crash trucks were waiting, indicating we were the emergency. I do not remember us declaring an emergency. All I heard the captain say was we did not wish excessive vectoring as we were approaching minimum fuel, which means normal handling. Ny approach controller I think may only have heard 'minimum fuel' and declared us an emergency. Hence this paperwork and company paperwork on the incident. We landed with 9000 pounds of fuel. I'm not sure if there is a fix. After the air carrier crash last yr, I'm sure ny approach control may be a bit over sensitive to potential minimum fuel situations. Perhaps the captain should not have even mentioned minimum fuel or approaching minimum fuel. As the 'approaching' part could have been blocked by another aircraft. I know I did not feel we were minimum fuel or emergency.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR WDB IMPLIED THEY HAD AN IMPENDING FUEL EMERGENCY. ZNY RESPONDED WITH A DIRECT CLRNC AND ACTIVATING EMERGENCY GND EQUIPMENT.

Narrative: PROB IS ATC ASKED IF WE WOULD BE A WX SHIP INTO JFK. A LINE OF TRW SE=SW JUST E OF JFK. OUR ALTERNATE WAS ISLIP, NY. THE CAPT REQUESTED NOT TO BE TURNED OVER TO ZBW AS WE WERE APCHING MINIMUM FUEL AND DID NOT WISH TO HAVE TO DO EXCESSIVE VECTORING. PROBABLY POOR USE OF WORDS; I.E., 'APCHING MINIMUM FUEL.' BUT CENTER ASKED FOR FUEL ON BOARD IN MINUTES AND THEN TURNED US OVER TO ZBW. ZBW AGAIN ASKED US FOR FUEL IN MINUTES AND SOULS ON BOARD. THEY CLRED US FOR APCH TO JFK AND CLRED US WHEN ABLE DIRECT TO THE ARPT. ON FINAL WE HEARD THAT THERE WAS AN ACFT ON FINAL WITH A FUEL EMER. UPON LNDG THE CRASH TRUCKS WERE WAITING, INDICATING WE WERE THE EMER. I DO NOT REMEMBER US DECLARING AN EMER. ALL I HEARD THE CAPT SAY WAS WE DID NOT WISH EXCESSIVE VECTORING AS WE WERE APCHING MINIMUM FUEL, WHICH MEANS NORMAL HANDLING. NY APCH CTLR I THINK MAY ONLY HAVE HEARD 'MINIMUM FUEL' AND DECLARED US AN EMER. HENCE THIS PAPERWORK AND COMPANY PAPERWORK ON THE INCIDENT. WE LANDED WITH 9000 LBS OF FUEL. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE IS A FIX. AFTER THE ACR CRASH LAST YR, I'M SURE NY APCH CTL MAY BE A BIT OVER SENSITIVE TO POTENTIAL MINIMUM FUEL SITUATIONS. PERHAPS THE CAPT SHOULD NOT HAVE EVEN MENTIONED MINIMUM FUEL OR APCHING MINIMUM FUEL. AS THE 'APCHING' PART COULD HAVE BEEN BLOCKED BY ANOTHER ACFT. I KNOW I DID NOT FEEL WE WERE MINIMUM FUEL OR EMER.

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.