Narrative:

Unexpected cruising altitude, routing, vectors, and WX, cmh to frg nov/thu/01. These factors led to a minimum fuel situation, to be followed by declaring a minimum fuel emergency, and request for ATC priority for an approach. The problem began when we did not receive our requested cruising altitude of FL330, due to eastbound traffic into the east coast. Staying at a final altitude of FL290 that resulted in higher fuel burns. Secondly, unexpected routing change that took us off our normal routing, and sent us to frg via a northern route. This added nearly 50 mins to planned en route time, as well as a further lower altitude restrs for the last hour of the flight. Once again causing higher fuel burns as well. Once we obtained the ATIS information at frg, and it was below minimums for the approach, we decided that isp would be a better option considering our fuel situation. While getting vectored for the approach, we were again assigned a lower altitude, thus higher fuel burns. Nearing isp, the airport went below minimums for the approach. At this time we opted for teb, after complying with ATC instruction, and an additional rerte to teb. We began working on an alternate plan if teb did not work out. Lower altitude was given by ATC due to traffic while being vectored for the approach. ATC pulled us off the approach because teb went below WX minimums. At this time we declared minimum fuel, and not an emergency, we requested vectors for an ILS into hpn, after a high turn onto final into hpn, ATC once again pulled us off the approach, due to our altitude at the OM, as well as intercept angle. Knowing the additional rertes and altitude changes were not an option, we declared a minimum fuel emergency, and requested first priority on the ILS to hpn, landing safely. Knowing the additional rertes and altitude changes were not an option, we declared a minimum fuel emergency, and requested first priority on the ILS to hpn. Unexpected cruising altitude routing, vectors, and WX, were all contributing factors. My thoughts on this matter are that the decision to declare minimum fuel emergency was the proper judgement call to make. We landed safely without incident. In the event the decision was not made the result would have been exhausting the aircraft of fuel, forced landing, and possible loss of life.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CPR CREW DECLARED FUEL EMER AFTER ENCOUNTERING ATC AND ALT RERTES WHILE FLYING INTO AN AREA OF BELOW MINIMUMS WX.

Narrative: UNEXPECTED CRUISING ALT, ROUTING, VECTORS, AND WX, CMH TO FRG NOV/THU/01. THESE FACTORS LED TO A MINIMUM FUEL SIT, TO BE FOLLOWED BY DECLARING A MINIMUM FUEL EMER, AND REQUEST FOR ATC PRIORITY FOR AN APCH. THE PROB BEGAN WHEN WE DID NOT RECEIVE OUR REQUESTED CRUISING ALT OF FL330, DUE TO EBOUND TFC INTO THE EAST COAST. STAYING AT A FINAL ALT OF FL290 THAT RESULTED IN HIGHER FUEL BURNS. SECONDLY, UNEXPECTED ROUTING CHANGE THAT TOOK US OFF OUR NORMAL ROUTING, AND SENT US TO FRG VIA A NORTHERN RTE. THIS ADDED NEARLY 50 MINS TO PLANNED ENRTE TIME, AS WELL AS A FURTHER LOWER ALT RESTRS FOR THE LAST HR OF THE FLT. ONCE AGAIN CAUSING HIGHER FUEL BURNS AS WELL. ONCE WE OBTAINED THE ATIS INFO AT FRG, AND IT WAS BELOW MINIMUMS FOR THE APCH, WE DECIDED THAT ISP WOULD BE A BETTER OPTION CONSIDERING OUR FUEL SIT. WHILE GETTING VECTORED FOR THE APCH, WE WERE AGAIN ASSIGNED A LOWER ALT, THUS HIGHER FUEL BURNS. NEARING ISP, THE ARPT WENT BELOW MINIMUMS FOR THE APCH. AT THIS TIME WE OPTED FOR TEB, AFTER COMPLYING WITH ATC INSTRUCTION, AND AN ADDITIONAL RERTE TO TEB. WE BEGAN WORKING ON AN ALTERNATE PLAN IF TEB DID NOT WORK OUT. LOWER ALT WAS GIVEN BY ATC DUE TO TFC WHILE BEING VECTORED FOR THE APCH. ATC PULLED US OFF THE APCH BECAUSE TEB WENT BELOW WX MINIMUMS. AT THIS TIME WE DECLARED MINIMUM FUEL, AND NOT AN EMER, WE REQUESTED VECTORS FOR AN ILS INTO HPN, AFTER A HIGH TURN ONTO FINAL INTO HPN, ATC ONCE AGAIN PULLED US OFF THE APCH, DUE TO OUR ALT AT THE OM, AS WELL AS INTERCEPT ANGLE. KNOWING THE ADDITIONAL RERTES AND ALT CHANGES WERE NOT AN OPTION, WE DECLARED A MINIMUM FUEL EMER, AND REQUESTED FIRST PRIORITY ON THE ILS TO HPN, LNDG SAFELY. KNOWING THE ADDITIONAL RERTES AND ALT CHANGES WERE NOT AN OPTION, WE DECLARED A MINIMUM FUEL EMER, AND REQUESTED FIRST PRIORITY ON THE ILS TO HPN. UNEXPECTED CRUISING ALT ROUTING, VECTORS, AND WX, WERE ALL CONTRIBUTING FACTORS. MY THOUGHTS ON THIS MATTER ARE THAT THE DECISION TO DECLARE MINIMUM FUEL EMER WAS THE PROPER JUDGEMENT CALL TO MAKE. WE LANDED SAFELY WITHOUT INCIDENT. IN THE EVENT THE DECISION WAS NOT MADE THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTING THE ACFT OF FUEL, FORCED LNDG, AND POSSIBLE LOSS OF LIFE.

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.