AOPA article: ATC and Airworthiness

[azure]

I've talked a couple times about an occurrence a few years ago where one of my fuel gauges developed a temporary glitch while on flight following with Rochester Approach over western NY. Instead of simply canceling flight following and silently landing to check it out, I made the mistake of letting ATC know the reason for my precautionary landing. The result: they gave me special handling even though I explicitly asked them not to, and then a few days later I received a call from a FSDO ASI that culminated in an unpleasant grilling that focused mostly on what I did before I flew the plane out of the totally deserted podunk airport I had diverted to.

That tale of mine ruffled a few feathers from people contending that one should never hesitate to declare an emergency, that ATC is there to help you, and that you'll almost never have to justify anything or face certificate action for doing so. Mike Yodice of AOPA legal has an interesting discussion about exactly my situation in an article this week that's worth reading. The bottom line is that he confirms that when you mention anything implying a possible airworthiness issue, ATC is *required* to fill out a MOR (mandatory occurrence report), the FSDO is obligated to follow up on it, and that your actions before the next flight will be the main focus of the ASI's questions. If the ASI had decided, rightly or wrongly, that my plane had been in an unairworthy condition when I flew it out of Podunk, I'd have been facing certificate action.

Anyway Yodice's article just confirms for me a lesson learned back then, that the FAA has forced ATC into acting as part of the Big Brother machine overseeing and scrutinizing us and our birds, and that in situations where there's no real emergency, it's better to give them as little information as needed. Of course, how much to tell them is your choice, but it's important to know that ATC is not always your friend, and you can wind up under the FAA microscope as the result of reaching out to them in some circumstances.

The full article, which you might have to be a member to read, is here.

 

[frfly172]

Remember when someone says Hi I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help you,don't believe it.

 

[RotorDude]

I've talked a couple times about an occurrence a few years ago where one of my fuel gauges developed a temporary glitch while on flight following with Rochester Approach over western NY. Instead of simply canceling flight following and silently landing to check it out, I made the mistake of letting ATC know the reason for my precautionary landing. The result: they gave me special handling even though I explicitly asked them not to, and then a few days later I received a call from a FSDO ASI that culminated in an unpleasant grilling that focused mostly on what I did before I flew the plane out of the totally deserted podunk airport I had diverted to.

That tale of mine ruffled a few feathers from people contending that one should never hesitate to declare an emergency, that ATC is there to help you, and that you'll almost never have to justify anything or face certificate action for doing so. Mike Yodice of AOPA legal has an interesting discussion about exactly my situation in an article this week that's worth reading. The bottom line is that he confirms that when you mention anything implying a possible airworthiness issue, ATC is *required* to fill out a MOR (mandatory occurrence report), the FSDO is obligated to follow up on it, and that your actions before the next flight will be the main focus of the ASI's questions. If the ASI had decided, rightly or wrongly, that my plane had been in an unairworthy condition when I flew it out of Podunk, I'd have been facing certificate action.

Anyway Yodice's article just confirms for me a lesson learned back then, that the FAA has forced ATC into acting as part of the Big Brother machine overseeing and scrutinizing us and our birds, and that in situations where there's no real emergency, it's better to give them as little information as needed. Of course, how much to tell them is your choice, but it's important to know that ATC is not always your friend, and you can wind up under the FAA microscope as the result of reaching out to them in some circumstances.

The full article, which you might have to be a member to read, is here.

ATC (and FAA in general) are a valuable free resource available to us to complete our flights safely. But like LEO, they are not our buddies (while on duty), and shouldn't be. Anything you say on the air is on the record, and may remain there indefinitely, so don't say anything that's not crucial to the safety of flight in your judgment as PIC.
In my experience, the vast majority are really nice and helpful, and would love to help us as much as possible, but also have strict rules to follow and sometimes that can be counter-productive, as in your case. I can almost imagine the guy you were talking to wincing and mumbling to himself, "why tell me that?".

 

[alfadog]

Thanks, I'll read it. Just checking in to let you know that no AOPA membership is required.

 

[PeeGee]

I don't see what's so unreasonable about any of this.
You advised the controller of an issue, he/she treated it as an emergency. Most controllers aren't pilots, they don't know that the fuel gauges hardly work when they work, so to them it sounds more urgent than it is. The controller has no idea that the FSDO even gets involved, they just want to help.
That's their job, look for things that are going wrong and fix it.
The rest of it is in the FSDOs hands, the reports are automatically generated.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I agree, tell no one nuttin'.
With this, they are making a culture that reduces safety.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I don't see what's so unreasonable about any of this.
You advised the controller of an issue, he/she treated it as an emergency. Most controllers aren't pilots, they don't know that the fuel gauges hardly work when they work, so to them it sounds more urgent than it is. The controller has no idea that the FSDO even gets involved, they just want to help.
That's their job, look for things that are going wrong and fix it.
The rest of it is in the FSDOs hands, the reports are automatically generated.

The controller must generate the report before the FSDO has any knowledge the event happened. The report is called an 8020-17 and is filed via ATQA, and if filed, the FSDO must investigate and close with a 8020-18 or -19.

 

[azure]

I never said there was anything unreasonable. It's just not consistent with popular "wisdom" about what happens when you share information with ATC when trying to deal with an in-flight problem. I think pilots are better off knowing that what they say can, and sometimes will, come back to bite them. It's not a matter of ATC not knowing about fuel gauges - in fact it's probably because they DO know that fuel gauges are legally required to be operational that they had to make the report. (And I think they know, or have a good idea, that the FSDO gets involved - why do you think they don't?)

It also raises the question about what happens in similar cases involving, say, the pilot's "airworthiness" rather than the aircraft's. Suppose you decide to return to base because you don't feel well, and let it slip to ATC that you think you might have a stomach bug. Will that trigger a report and a followup by the Regional Flight Surgeon, pulling your medical records, etc.? How far does the scrutiny go?

BTW, I'm not suggesting that this is all totally unreasonable. It's the FAA's job to make sure that aircraft are not flying with known safety problems. Certainly if your plane develops an engine issue in flight, you *shouldn't* fly it again until it's been checked out by an A&P. If you start getting chest pains while in flight, you'd better get medical attention before flying again. On the other hand there are gray areas like the fuel gauge issue where the gauge being operational adds so little safety-related information that airworthiness becomes a purely legal issue. Picture yourself in my position, at a deserted airport with absolutely no FBO or maintenance shop, very spotty cellphone service, plenty of fuel in the tanks, just one fuel gauge not working. Legally you are grounded, and stranded. There is no safety reason not to take off and fly it somewhere it can be looked it, but since you told ATC what was going on, you're going to have to justify everything you did, so you're in a pickle of your own making.

(Luckily, in my case, the gauge came back to life and stayed working, so I was legal to take off again, and since I didn't get any notice of enforcement action, the FSDO inspector apparently agreed.)

Thanks, I'll read it. Just checking in to let you know that no AOPA membership is required.

Thanks John, I'm glad they made the article public.

 

[PeeGee]

The controller must generate the report before the FSDO has any knowledge the event happened. The report is called an 8020-17 and is filed via ATQA, and if filed, the FSDO must investigate and close with a 8020-18 or -19.

No, they don't.
the controller reports the situation to the front line manager who reports it to their manager and it goes from there. it has absolutely nothing to do with the controller. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[PeeGee]

I never said there was anything unreasonable. It's just not consistent with popular "wisdom" about what happens when you share information with ATC when trying to deal with an in-flight problem. I think pilots are better off knowing that what they say can, and sometimes will, come back to bite them. It's not a matter of ATC not knowing about fuel gauges - in fact it's probably because they DO know that fuel gauges are legally required to be operational that they had to make the report. (And I think they know, or have a good idea, that the FSDO gets involved - why do you think they don't?)

It also raises the question about what happens in similar cases involving, say, the pilot's "airworthiness" rather than the aircraft's. Suppose you decide to return to base because you don't feel well, and let it slip to ATC that you think you might have a stomach bug. Will that trigger a report and a followup by the Regional Flight Surgeon, pulling your medical records, etc.? How far does the scrutiny go?

BTW, I'm not suggesting that this is all totally unreasonable. It's the FAA's job to make sure that aircraft are not flying with known safety problems. Certainly if your plane develops an engine issue in flight, you *shouldn't* fly it again until it's been checked out by an A&P. If you start getting chest pains while in flight, you'd better get medical attention before flying again. On the other hand there are gray areas like the fuel gauge issue where the gauge being operational adds so little safety-related information that airworthiness becomes a purely legal issue. Picture yourself in my position, at a deserted airport with absolutely no FBO or maintenance shop, very spotty cellphone service, plenty of fuel in the tanks, just one fuel gauge not working. Legally you are grounded, and stranded. There is no safety reason not to take off and fly it somewhere it can be looked it, but since you told ATC what was going on, you're going to have to justify everything you did, so you're in a pickle of your own making.

(Luckily, in my case, the gauge came back to life and stayed working, so I was legal to take off again, and since I didn't get any notice of enforcement action, the FSDO inspector apparently agreed.)

Thanks John, I'm glad they made the article public.

So you're suggesting what exactly? Keep everything a secret out of paranoia? Sounds really safe.

 

[azure]

No, they don't.
the controller reports the situation to the front line manager who reports it to their manager and it goes from there. it has absolutely nothing to do with the controller. You have no idea what you're talking about.

And that's inconsistent with what R&W wrote how? The report is generated by a human in the ATC chain of command. Doesn't matter whether it's the controller you worked or someone higher up the chain.

BTW, R&W is former FAA, so I think there's a good chance he knows what he'a talking about.

 

[PeeGee]

And that's inconsistent with what R&W wrote how? The report is generated by a human in the ATC chain of command. Doesn't matter whether it's the controller you worked or someone higher up the chain.

BTW, R&W is former FAA, so I think there's a good chance he knows what he'a talking about.

Guess what, I'm current so I probably have an idea how it works right now.

he didn't say "in the chain of command" he said "the controller" generates the report, that isn't the case. A lot of it is automated now.

 

[azure]

So you're suggesting what exactly? Keep everything a secret out of paranoia? Sounds really safe.

I'm suggesting that the best policy might be to be careful about sharing information with ATC. Tell them what they need to know to help you, and nothing more.

Of course, it's all up to you as the pilot. Your choice, you'll bear the consequences.

And what is paranoid about any of this?

 

[azure]

Guess what, I'm current so I probably have an idea how it works right now.

Then you'll have to be more specific for us ordinary mortals who don't. Because from where I sit, it sounds like you two are in violent agreement.

 

[PeeGee]

I'm suggesting that the best policy might be to be careful about sharing information with ATC. Tell them what they need to know to help you, and nothing more.

Of course, it's all up to you as the pilot. Your choice, you'll bear the consequences.

And what is paranoid about any of this?

so you don't think there's anything paranoid about not asking for help because you're afraid the fsdo might call and ask a couple questions?

 

[azure]

Reread what I wrote. I didn't say not to ask for help if you need it. I said to be careful about sharing information they don't need to have.

Also reread what I wrote in the OP. I didn't ask for help. I told them I wanted to cancel flight following. They didn't need to know why.

 

[Velocity173]

To me declaring a precautionary landing should not be treated as an emergency unless the pilot specifically reports it as an emergency. Sone controllers will write up the MOR because a PL is an "emergency landing" while others don't see it that way.

Heard an AH-64 declare a PL to a tower overseas and the controller said "I have no idea what a PL is. Are you declaring an emergency or not." Pilot said "precautionary landing and negative emergency." I've also been to places where a PL was an automatic emergency but emergency vehicles weren't rolled unless the PL met certain criteria.

To me a PL just ends up being extraneous paperwork that can be avoided by not giving any aircraft specific reason. If it's a specific procedure listed in the emergency section of the flight manual then I'll declare. Outside of that, then it's just a simple divert.

 

[RotorAndWing]

No, they don't.
the controller reports the situation to the front line manager who reports it to their manager and it goes from there. it has absolutely nothing to do with the controller. You have no idea what you're talking about.

So you are saying the controller never files the 8020-17, only the ATC manager does (if he feels it's warranted?)

 

[neilw2]

so you don't think there's anything paranoid about not asking for help because you're afraid the fsdo might call and ask a couple questions?

No, by reading her post I think she is saying that if it is not an issue that compromises flight safety, it may be best to not report a small instrument malfunction that requires a PRECAUTIONARY landing as it will trigger a small investigation. I never knew that before that post and I found it helpful. Not sure how you could find a problem with what she is saying

 

[Velocity173]

Semantics. Controller on position isn't doing the write up. Sup / CIC will. They're still "controllers."

 

[James331]

so you don't think there's anything paranoid about not asking for help because you're afraid the fsdo might call and ask a couple questions?

No, because when you know someone's going to file a report, it's not paranoid and when it's going to involve someone who could cause you a world of trouble, you don't know what questions they are going to ask and if they decide to go after you, they don't even need to prove your guilt, more like you need to prove your innocence... it's not a matter of being paranoid, it's a matter of being a fool for opening doors.


If I require expedited handling I'll straight up declare, that's it, I'll tell them what I need and where I need it, outside from that I don't have the desire, the time, or need for risking the sharing of any other information.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Semantics. Controller on position isn't doing the write up. Sup / CIC will. They're still "controllers."

Thanks. I thought that was rather clear.

 

[JimNtexas]

Our flying club has had a couple of cases where a pilot has been given priority by ATC, either because he or she declared an emergency, or had one declared for him because he he said words to the effect of 'I don't have an emergency but...'.

All have generated a phone call from the FSDO. The only ones that seemed to tweak the feds a bit were the 'I don't have an emergency but...' situations.

I'm convinced that you are always better off saying 'emergency', 'pan pan pan', or 'mayday' than just dancing around your problem by playing word games with ATC.

Declare or don't declare, there is no 'but'.

 

[azure]

To me declaring a precautionary landing should not be treated as an emergency unless the pilot specifically reports it as an emergency. Sone controllers will write up the MOR because a PL is an "emergency landing" while others don't see it that way.

So you're saying the controller has discretion on whether to file the MOR or not? That's interesting too, if true. And it conflicts slightly with what I got out of Yodice's article, that if there's any question of an airworthiness issue, the MOR is mandatory. (And considering that it's called a Mandatory Occurrence Report, it seems odd to me that it could ever be optional.)

BTW, in my case, "precautionary landing" is the exact wording I used with ATC. I only added the reason why I was doing it, which (according to Yodice) is probably why the MOR got written up.

And neilw2, yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Whether the investigation is "small" or not probably depends on whether the pilot does everything by the book. If my gauge had still been on the fritz when I took off from Podunk, maybe it would have been more than just a few boxes to check off.

 

[MarkZ]

So you are saying the controller never files the 8020-17, only the ATC manager does (if he feels it's warranted?)

The only time a controller will fill out such a form is as a Controller In Charge in lieu of management present in the operation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[RotorAndWing]

The only time a controller will fill out such a form is as a Controller In Charge in lieu of management present in the operation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Understand, I still think we are dealing in semantics.

Thanks.

 

[MarkZ]

Thanks. I thought that was rather clear.

Sorry, I wrote my response before I saw this. To your credit, I had a good idea what you meant by "controller" as well. To PeeGee's credit, I can see 100% where he is coming from. We don't do the paperwork, at least not unless instructed to do so.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[RotorAndWing]

Sorry, I wrote my response before I saw this. To your credit, I had a good idea what you meant by "controller" as well. To PeeGee's credit, I can see 100% where he is coming from. We don't do the paperwork, at least not unless instructed to do so.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Same way basically it works in the FSDO level, a FLM assigns the task and approves anything before it leaves the office. Same with ATQA, the Inspector completes the -18 but the FLM and Manager must concur and approve it before it's sent to Region.

 

[Velocity173]

So you're saying the controller has discretion on whether to file the MOR or not? That's interesting too, if true. And it conflicts slightly with what I got out of Yodice's article, that if there's any question of an airworthiness issue, the MOR is mandatory. (And considering that it's called a Mandatory Occurrence Report, it seems odd to me that it could ever be optional.)

BTW, in my case, "precautionary landing" is the exact wording I used with ATC. I only added the reason why I was doing it, which (according to Yodice) is probably why the MOR got written up.

And neilw2, yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Whether the investigation is "small" or not probably depends on whether the pilot does everything by the book. If my gauge had still been on the fritz when I took off from Podunk, maybe it would have been more than just a few boxes to check off.

Since the controller declared an emergency on your situation, yes a report must be filed. The question is, is the declaration of a PL an automatic emergency and a MOR be filed? I'd like to know where in the PCG or .65 that says a PL is an emergency. To me, unless the pilot, those responsible for the aircraft or the controller declares, it's not an emergency. I don't think your fuel gauge is even listed on the emergency items of the MOR. That list is there to document what item pertained to the emergency. Do you believe your fuel gauge problem was either a distress or urgency?

I've brought the PL thing up with other controllers all the time. They all say unless an emergency declaration is made with the PL, they won't treat it as an emergency. They're definitely not going to override a PC's judgment who doesn't want to declare either. The controller in your example has the authority but I think the intent of the rule is for pilots who are incapacitated or just overwhelmed with the situation to declare.

As far as mandatory reports and ATC. I'll give you a perfect example where a controller is required to report something but didn't or wasn't until the pilot made it happen. A Controller friend of mine was working a helo conducting traffic patterns at his field. On one of the passes the controller observed a person standing next to the runway. The controller issued a caution to the helo about the person and there relation to the runway. The student replied that it was his instructor. The student then landed, the instructor walked across the runway, got in the aircraft and hover taxied to parking. The controller called ARFF to drive over to the hanger and tell the CFI that he can't be walking on a movement area (runway) without ATC authority. The controller in question had no intention of reporting the pilot deviation until the CFI called the tower. The CFI was irate and made comments such as "is this the rookie crew working today!?" The CFI said he was going to report this to the airport manager. The controller in question contacted the airport manager first and mentioned the CFIs unprofessionalism but still wasn't going to report the PD. Airport manager said no, go and write his butt up.

We always link controllers on POA with the bureaucrats in the FAA. You've got two distinct groups in ATC. Those that joined to do a demanding and rewarding job and those that stop doing ATC, go on to management and create paperwork for controllers. Controllers hate paperwork and red tape as much as pilots. They'll be the first to tell you that if they can avoid filing a report on a pilot, they will.

 

[azure]

Since the controller declared an emergency on your situation, yes a report must be filed. The question is, is the declaration of a PL an automatic emergency and a MOR be filed? I'd like to know where in the PCG or .65 that says a PL is an emergency. To me, unless the pilot, those responsible for the aircraft or the controller declares, it's not an emergency. I don't think your fuel gauge is even listed on the emergency items of the MOR. That list is there to document what item pertained to the emergency. Do you believe your fuel gauge problem was either a distress or urgency?

Of course not - they asked me if I wanted the trucks rolled and I said "negative", I thought quite clearly. They rolled the trucks anyway. Yes they treated it as an emergency. So then, an MOR is only required if ATC treats the event as an emergency? That actually makes sense and is consistent with Yodice's example of a pilot reporting a rough engine on climb-out. I think most pilots would say that declaring makes sense in that situation. A flaky fuel gauge, not so much.

We always link controllers on POA with the bureaucrats in the FAA. You've got two distinct groups in ATC. Those that joined to do a demanding and rewarding job and those that stop doing ATC, go on to management and create paperwork for controllers. Controllers hate paperwork and red tape as much as pilots. They'll be the first to tell you that if they can avoid filing a report on a pilot, they will.

Not on my part. I have a great deal of respect for the actual controllers, you guys are tasked to do a tough job with long hours and face a huge amount of stress on the job. I don't know much about the management side, but my experience in a totally different context (academia) suggests to me that once people move into management, their mindset and their priorities become very different. For example, administrators in academia, such as deans and department chairs with long terms of tenure, sometimes forget where they came from and start treating other faculty as underlings instead of as colleagues. They adapt to and become actors in a very different culture. Maybe something like that happens in ATC, too.

 

[Velocity173]

Of course not - they asked me if I wanted the trucks rolled and I said "negative", I thought quite clearly. They rolled the trucks anyway. Yes they treated it as an emergency. So then, an MOR is only required if ATC treats the event as an emergency? That actually makes sense and is consistent with Yodice's example of a pilot reporting a rough engine on climb-out. I think most pilots would say that declaring makes sense in that situation. A flaky fuel gauge, not so much.

Not on my part. I have a great deal of respect for the actual controllers, you guys are tasked to do a tough job with long hours and face a huge amount of stress on the job. I don't know much about the management side, but my experience in a totally different context (academia) suggests to me that once people move into management, their mindset and their priorities become very different. For example, administrators in academia, such as deans and department chairs with long terms of tenure, sometimes forget where they came from and start treating other faculty as underlings instead of as colleagues. They adapt to and become actors in a very different culture. Maybe something like that happens in ATC, too.

Really the crux of the matter is 1) is a faulty fuel gauge required by 91.205 considered an emergency? While now un airworthy, I still believe the emergency declaration may or may not be necessary. 2) is a PL automatically considered an emergency? I think not, however I would venture to say this particular controller interpreted the PL as being an emergency.

As far as the MOR, the only spot your situation would fall under would be "emergency MOR" section. I would think in order for that to be reported, an emergency first must be declared. As I said, I don't agree with the controller for declaring since you said it wasn't an emergency. To me you exercised your PIC authority to land with a malfunction as soon as practical. It's not even a required incident report after you land. To me, that malfunction, especially since it's not a specific emergency procedure from the AFM, the declaration should be left up to you. As if the controller even knows what instrument, avionics etc are required for flight. When I did ATC in the military, we got a rudimentary class on basic instruments but nothing in relation to airworthiness.

Maybe there's a CC letter that states anytime you have a required item from 91.205 that has failed, you must declare. There's basic guidance in the AIM on declaration but obviously that's not regulatory. Absent some letter clarifying it, I'd consider your situation to be a simple inflight equipment malfunction (2-1-7) of the .65 with no emergency situation involved.

 

[Sundancer]

Good info, and with benefit of your hindsight, if it happens to me I think I'll tell them I'm diverting, and leave it as that. Less hassle for controller(s) and me. If there isn't any assistance they can provide, why bring them into the loop?

 

[docmirror]

Why not; 'center, spamcan 12345 is cancelling flight following and squawk VFR, have a nice day'. Then just monitor freq until you are on the ground?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Why not; 'center, spamcan 12345 is cancelling flight following and squawk VFR, have a nice day'. Then just monitor freq until you are on the ground?

I think she realized that was the best action after the fact, unfortunately.

 

[Velocity173]

Another Yodice interpretation. I suppose a required piece of equipment that is inop could be an urgency based on airworthiness. However, it makes no mention of requiring a formal declaration of emergency based on regs. It's not under 91.187 as a malfunction report either. Also, the official definition of urgency makes reference to assistance from ATC. Not sure how that would apply in the OP's case since she required no assistance.

http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/2001/September/200109_Training_Topics_Legal_Briefing.html

 

[Gucci Pilot]

I know that anything I say to ATC is recorded so I try not to paint myself into a corner. I would have cancelled and that be the end of it. If he asked why? I need to take a bathroom break. As others have said, giving them details just conplicates things. If someone has a "true" emergency, yeah don't hesitate to tell ATC. A "glitchy" fuel gauge? I trust my own math more than those things in small GA planes so I don't that is even worth advising to ATC. I think my biggest concern is the aeronautical decision making. You knew you had plenty of gas, why would you go to, as you described...

Picture yourself in my position, at a deserted airport with absolutely no FBO or maintenance shop, very spotty cellphone service, plenty of fuel in the tanks, just one fuel gauge not working.

Why would you go to that airport? Why wouldn't you turn around and go home or go to an airport with an FBO and mx service?

 

[Clark1961]

Why would you go to that airport? Why wouldn't you turn around and go home or go to an airport with an FBO and mx service?

It seems that everyone has to learn that lesson on their own.

 

[cowman]

Good info, and with benefit of your hindsight, if it happens to me I think I'll tell them I'm diverting, and leave it as that. Less hassle for controller(s) and me. If there isn't any assistance they can provide, why bring them into the loop?

They usually ask why you're diverting. Tell them it's a passenger request or if pressed that someone really needs a restroom. Just don't use the "E" word.

Better yet if it's a fuel gauge just say you've got less fuel than expected at this point and want to stop for more gas.

 

[docmirror]

If anyone on the radio ever asks me why I'm doing something my only reply is asking if I'm in violation, and if so, what am I in violation of at this time, and I'll stop doing it. End of discussion. Have a nice day.

 

[Everskyward]

They usually ask why you're diverting.

This. I've told them things that probably sound more serious than a glitch in the fuel gauge (?) but have never been questioned later. They rolled the trucks because you said you had a glitch in your fuel gauge? Seriously?