Narrative:

Long range cruise mode from hawaii to ny area (frg). Fuel estimate at touchdown was 2200 pounds total. At 2100 pounds, we would be able to cruise 45 mins to dry tanks. Our airplane does have good performance numbers, but we do not like these fuel numbers. (Our normal fuel-remaining floor is 3000 pounds in VMC, to provide an extra cushion for lower altitude arrs into the ny area.) I told ATC we could not accept undue delay because of the time aloft and fuel remaining. Rather than getting everybody upset with ambiguity, I declared 'minimum fuel.' when ATC asked how much fuel we had remaining, I told them '1 hour.' we were 15 mins from touchdown at that time. This prompted a rather sarcastic remark from another jet that had volunteered to slow his speed to allow us to be sequenced ahead of him. 1) given the same scenario, I'd do the same again, and 2) less than 10 mins after our arrival, a single engine airplane had a nose gear collapse on landing, which shut things down for awhile. My conclusion is that ATC would rather expedite an arrival to an intended destination than have to put up with diversions or worse. With traffic reasonably light on a sat afternoon, I believe my decision to extend a near VFR/VMC WX minimums, especially with a number of easy alternate airports nearby, prudent. My question is, does ATC want us to wait until we're really pressed to declare 'minimum fuel,' or was it right to base our 'bingo' on VFR/VMC fuel minimums?

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CPR MLG DECLARES MINIMUM FUEL PREMATURELY.

Narrative: LONG RANGE CRUISE MODE FROM HAWAII TO NY AREA (FRG). FUEL ESTIMATE AT TOUCHDOWN WAS 2200 LBS TOTAL. AT 2100 LBS, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CRUISE 45 MINS TO DRY TANKS. OUR AIRPLANE DOES HAVE GOOD PERFORMANCE NUMBERS, BUT WE DO NOT LIKE THESE FUEL NUMBERS. (OUR NORMAL FUEL-REMAINING FLOOR IS 3000 LBS IN VMC, TO PROVIDE AN EXTRA CUSHION FOR LOWER ALT ARRS INTO THE NY AREA.) I TOLD ATC WE COULD NOT ACCEPT UNDUE DELAY BECAUSE OF THE TIME ALOFT AND FUEL REMAINING. RATHER THAN GETTING EVERYBODY UPSET WITH AMBIGUITY, I DECLARED 'MINIMUM FUEL.' WHEN ATC ASKED HOW MUCH FUEL WE HAD REMAINING, I TOLD THEM '1 HR.' WE WERE 15 MINS FROM TOUCHDOWN AT THAT TIME. THIS PROMPTED A RATHER SARCASTIC REMARK FROM ANOTHER JET THAT HAD VOLUNTEERED TO SLOW HIS SPD TO ALLOW US TO BE SEQUENCED AHEAD OF HIM. 1) GIVEN THE SAME SCENARIO, I'D DO THE SAME AGAIN, AND 2) LESS THAN 10 MINS AFTER OUR ARR, A SINGLE ENG AIRPLANE HAD A NOSE GEAR COLLAPSE ON LNDG, WHICH SHUT THINGS DOWN FOR AWHILE. MY CONCLUSION IS THAT ATC WOULD RATHER EXPEDITE AN ARR TO AN INTENDED DEST THAN HAVE TO PUT UP WITH DIVERSIONS OR WORSE. WITH TFC REASONABLY LIGHT ON A SAT AFTERNOON, I BELIEVE MY DECISION TO EXTEND A NEAR VFR/VMC WX MINIMUMS, ESPECIALLY WITH A NUMBER OF EASY ALTERNATE ARPTS NEARBY, PRUDENT. MY QUESTION IS, DOES ATC WANT US TO WAIT UNTIL WE'RE REALLY PRESSED TO DECLARE 'MINIMUM FUEL,' OR WAS IT RIGHT TO BASE OUR 'BINGO' ON VFR/VMC FUEL MINIMUMS?

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.