Narrative:

During non stop flight from sfo to ewr got a major rerte from ATC due to WX in the chicago/cleveland airspace. It added 45 mins to flight time and dropped our planned landing fuel from 11800 pounds to 6400 pounds. When still about 1 hour from ewr, ZBW cleared us to maintain 33000 ft and expect 27000 ft by art. This premature descent would have dropped our landing fuel to about 5000 pounds or less, which would have given us less than 45 mins fuel reserves at ewr. At this time the captain declared a 'fuel advisory' or 'minimum fuel advisory.' our 'fom' states that this is not an emergency situation and it does not imply the need for traffic priority. However, we think that we were given traffic priority by ATC and also were asked 2 or 3 times about our fuel remaining in mins. Since the WX at ewr and at other area airports was good, I feel that we were never in a dangerous situation. Because of having stayed at altitude until close to ewr, our fuel at the gate was 7300 pounds, which gave us more than the legal reserves required for the conditions. I think that declaring a minimum fuel advisory was the correct judgement given the circumstances, even though it was borderline. I should add that most of us like to land this airplane with no less than 9000 pounds of fuel even though the minimum landing fuel is 1800 pounds (just enough for a VFR go around, close pattern and landing).

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR FO EXHIBITS A MOD LEVEL OF CONCERN REGARDING THE FLC'S MINIMUM FUEL ADVISORY THEY GAVE ATC. LANDED WITH ADEQUATE FUEL. SINCE THE CTLR ASKED FOR FUEL IN MINS FLC THOUGHT CTLR INTERPRETED ADVISORY AS A DECLARATION OF AN EMER.

Narrative: DURING NON STOP FLT FROM SFO TO EWR GOT A MAJOR RERTE FROM ATC DUE TO WX IN THE CHICAGO/CLEVELAND AIRSPACE. IT ADDED 45 MINS TO FLT TIME AND DROPPED OUR PLANNED LNDG FUEL FROM 11800 LBS TO 6400 LBS. WHEN STILL ABOUT 1 HR FROM EWR, ZBW CLRED US TO MAINTAIN 33000 FT AND EXPECT 27000 FT BY ART. THIS PREMATURE DSCNT WOULD HAVE DROPPED OUR LNDG FUEL TO ABOUT 5000 LBS OR LESS, WHICH WOULD HAVE GIVEN US LESS THAN 45 MINS FUEL RESERVES AT EWR. AT THIS TIME THE CAPT DECLARED A 'FUEL ADVISORY' OR 'MINIMUM FUEL ADVISORY.' OUR 'FOM' STATES THAT THIS IS NOT AN EMER SIT AND IT DOES NOT IMPLY THE NEED FOR TFC PRIORITY. HOWEVER, WE THINK THAT WE WERE GIVEN TFC PRIORITY BY ATC AND ALSO WERE ASKED 2 OR 3 TIMES ABOUT OUR FUEL REMAINING IN MINS. SINCE THE WX AT EWR AND AT OTHER AREA ARPTS WAS GOOD, I FEEL THAT WE WERE NEVER IN A DANGEROUS SIT. BECAUSE OF HAVING STAYED AT ALT UNTIL CLOSE TO EWR, OUR FUEL AT THE GATE WAS 7300 LBS, WHICH GAVE US MORE THAN THE LEGAL RESERVES REQUIRED FOR THE CONDITIONS. I THINK THAT DECLARING A MINIMUM FUEL ADVISORY WAS THE CORRECT JUDGEMENT GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS BORDERLINE. I SHOULD ADD THAT MOST OF US LIKE TO LAND THIS AIRPLANE WITH NO LESS THAN 9000 LBS OF FUEL EVEN THOUGH THE MINIMUM LNDG FUEL IS 1800 LBS (JUST ENOUGH FOR A VFR GAR, CLOSE PATTERN AND LNDG).

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.