Military Trainer
Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 85; Flight Crew Total 1600; Flight Crew Type 350
Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload; Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Human Factors; Procedure
Aircraft X and Aircraft Y were a flight of two aircraft operating on a military training mission VFR. Aircraft X flight completed training operations and proceeded northbound to ZZZ for a planned refueling stop prior to the next training evolution. Aircraft X established communications with approach at 8;500 feet MSL; approximately 35 miles SSE of ZZZ; with a request for VFR flight following to ZZZ. Approach directed Aircraft X to proceed direct to the ZZZ VOR for sequencing into ZZZ. Aircraft X was then given a traffic call to follow commercial traffic inbound to ZZZ. With traffic in sight; Aircraft X proceeded to follow the air carrier for a visual straight-in to 31L. Approach then directed Aircraft X to slow to 170 knots for sequence. Shortly after the speed restriction; approach determined that the interval was insufficient for Aircraft X to continue inbound; and directed Aircraft X on a vector for sequence with an altitude restriction of no lower than 5;500 feet MSL. Aircraft X complied as assigned.After receiving multiple extended vectors; Aircraft Y relayed to Aircraft X that he was minimum fuel with an indicated fuel state of 600 lbs (approximately 20 minutes until fuel starvation; and 200 lbs above standard operating procedures for minimum on deck fuel required). Aircraft X relayed to approach that the flight was min fuel and would require a full stop on the visual straight-in. ATC seemed confused about the min-fuel call and clarified that Aircraft X would require a full stop. Aircraft X responded in the affirmative; once again declaring the flight as min fuel.Approach directed Aircraft X to follow commercial traffic Aircraft Z inbound to ZZZ and to maintain visual separation. Approach then provided another airspeed restriction of 170 KIAS to follow traffic. At this point; Aircraft Y fuel state decreased first to 500 lbs with a system warning; then to 400 lbs. Aircraft Y communicated to Aircraft X that they were rapidly approaching Emergency fuel. At this time; Aircraft Y fuel state decreased to 300 lbs (less than 10 minutes of fuel remaining) with a system warning. Aircraft Y communicated to Aircraft X that they were emergency fuel and had to land immediately. Aircraft X then [advised ATC]; stating his wingman; Aircraft Y was emergency fuel. Approach continued to direct Aircraft X flight to follow Aircraft Z on a 13 mile final for ZZZ Runway 31L; providing an altitude and airspeed restriction. At this point; Aircraft Y fuel indications began to fluctuate between 100 lbs and 700 lbs. Aircraft Y immediately communicated to approach that they were unable to comply. Aircraft Y again stated that they were emergency fuel; required immediate priority; and that Aircraft Z needed to discontinue their approach and give way. ATC still failed to properly acknowledge the emergency. ATC did not ask what assistance was required; nor did they ask for souls on board or fuel remaining. Approach reiterated to Aircraft X to maintain visual separation from Aircraft Z. Aircraft Y confirmed they had the traffic in sight and would maintain visual separation. Approach then proceeded to ask Aircraft X if they were able to accept runway 31R. Aircraft X reported that they were unable (due to insufficient runway length). At this point; Approach finally directed Aircraft Z to discontinue approach and climb to 4;000 feet MSL. Aircraft Y safely overtook the Aircraft Z at approximately 11 miles on final; passing no closer than 1.2 nm. At this point approach directed Aircraft Y to standby to copy a contact number from tower once on deck; and cleared Aircraft X flight to switch to tower frequency.After switching to tower; a light civil aircraft began an extended communications check-in for a downwind entry with tower. When Aircraft Y was finally able to establish communications with tower as an emergency aircraft; ZZZ tower was unaware of any inbound emergency. Aircraft Y communicated once again that they were emergency fuel on a 7 mile final and required immediate landing on 31L. Tower cleared Aircraft Y to land on 31L. They then cleared Aircraft X; now dash two of the flight to land number two. After uneventfully clearing the runway; ZZZ ground control relayed to Aircraft Y to stand by to copy an ATC contact number in response to a possible deviation report. At no time did ATC; tower; or ground attempt to determine if any assistance was required for Aircraft Y. Due to unknown fuel indications; with a potential maintenance issue; and a known low-fuel state; Aircraft Y was gravely concerned about a potential flameout on final. Aircraft X and Aircraft Y made every effort to communicate this fact with ATC and tower. ATC seemed more concerned about relaying a contact number for Aircraft X flight to call while still airborne and dealing with an active emergency; vice acknowledging the emergency; and providing priority handling and deconfliction.Once safely on deck; Aircraft Y copied the ATC contact number. It was determined that an issue with Aircraft Y's fuel indication led to a lower than actual indication of fuel remaining; which caused a rapid progression to an emergency status.
[Report narrative contained no additional information.]
Military pilots reported of having a fuel issue which developed into an emergency fuel problem. There was confusion around the fact that ATC did nothing to help with the emergency situation. Aircraft landed at destination and was instructed to call TRACON for possible pilot deviation.