Declaring an emergency (or not)

[Rigged4Flight]

Is there ever a reason to not declare an emergency if you believe something is happening in/on/around your aircraft that could likely result in injury to the pilot/passengers or damage to the plane?

I understand the concept of crying wolf. But if something had you seriously concerned and you declared an emergency, only to find once on the ground that it was nothing, would there be any repercussions? Assuming that the landing was normal in all respects, other than the declaration of an emergency.

 

[ronnieh]

"Ever" covers a lot of territory. However as your question is stated I can think of no down side. I can think of several "down sides" if you should have and did not. Reprecussions, none I have ever heard.

You will now get many stories of people declaring emergencies and what is and is not an emergency. Again as to your actual question, no and no.

 

[Rigged4Flight]

"Ever" covers a lot of territory. However as your question is stated I can think of no down side. I can think of several "down sides" if you should have and did not. Reprecussions, none I have ever heard.

You will now get many stories of people declaring emergencies and what is and is not an emergency. Again as to your actual question, no and no.

You forgot to mention the arguments and hurt feelings over every little detail! Seriously, though - until I get back to the States and can start working on my actual training I am literally eating up these stories. The more the merrier.

Thanks for the answer. I've read over the years about various incidents where a controller would ask "Do you wish to declare an emergency" and the pilot sometimes says no, even though from the story it sure would seem to be emergency declaring time. From my days as an avionics tech in the Air Force (many moons ago) I am familiar with pilots that would get so focused on flying the plane, they would either forget or leave until too late, the option of ejecting. I wonder if sometimes this might be a factor in regards to a GA pilot not declaring an emergency. Or maybe it's a case of embarrassment because they hope to rectify something that they did wrong.

 

[azure]

It depends on what you mean by "reasons not to declare". There may very well be repercussions and at least a preliminary investigation even for something as innocuous as telling ATC you have a fuel gauge malfunction and would like to land to check it out. You do not even have to declare an emergency to trigger the "repercussions". If you are in the system and divert for reasons that might be airworthiness or medically related, ATC is supposed to file paperwork and an FAA inspector will almost certainly come a-calling. If you declare an emergency for something airworthiness related or medical, even if you land at your filed destination, I would expect the feds to ask some questions. If it's possibly the result of poor ADM or airmanship on your part, ditto, though I don't have any personal experience so far with that kind of scenario (knocking on wood).

But the question is, if you or a passenger might need the fire trucks or medical assistance when you land, which is more important, ensuring the safety of everyone involved, or worrying about the suits and the paperwork? Skin, tin, ticket is the priority list I was taught. That said, if there is NO upside to informing ATC of what is going on, and no way they could help you either on the ground or before, I would not give them more information than they need to know. By definition, of course, if you have a true emergency, then you are likely to need help from someone as long as there is a chance that someone on board will survive.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

No. Erring on the side of caution is never a bad idea. Of course there should be a significant event to tie your concern to: Vibration, hot or smoky smells, odd instrument indications, control anomalies ,etc. If you can land quickly and need no special traffic help then it may not be required, but if in a remote area, or as I was when I first had an emergency a few hundred miles out to sea and if worse come to worse it will give the investigators a clue when they dig through the wreckage. If they find it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Is there ever a reason to not declare an emergency if you believe something is happening in/on/around your aircraft that could likely result in injury to the pilot/passengers or damage to the plane?

No, there is not.

I understand the concept of crying wolf. But if something had you seriously concerned and you declared an emergency, only to find once on the ground that it was nothing, would there be any repercussions? Assuming that the landing was normal in all respects, other than the declaration of an emergency.

No, there would not be, assuming you did so in good faith. Just don't do so in bad faith like Chris Eden did with his "minimum fuel" declaration.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/3932.PDF

 

[bobmrg]

It depends on what you mean by "reasons not to declare". There may very well be repercussions and at least a preliminary investigation even for something as innocuous as telling ATC you have a fuel gauge malfunction and would like to land to check it out. You do not even have to declare an emergency to trigger the "repercussions". If you are in the system and divert for reasons that might be airworthiness or medically related, ATC is supposed to file paperwork and an FAA inspector will almost certainly come a-calling. If you declare an emergency for something airworthiness related or medical, even if you land at your filed destination, I would expect the feds to ask some questions. If it's possibly the result of poor ADM or airmanship on your part, ditto, though I don't have any personal experience so far with that kind of scenario (knocking on wood).

But the question is, if you or a passenger might need the fire trucks or medical assistance when you land, which is more important, ensuring the safety of everyone involved, or worrying about the suits and the paperwork? Skin, tin, ticket is the priority list I was taught. That said, if there is NO upside to informing ATC of what is going on, and no way they could help you either on the ground or before, I would not give them more information than they need to know. By definition, of course, if you have a true emergency, then you are likely to need help from someone as long as there is a chance that someone on board will survive.

azure, do you have any specifics about the instances you cite? My own experiences (more than one) are that there are no repercussions, not even a "call this number," when you declare. It is far better to declare than to keep it to yourself. Read AIM 6-1-2...it says to declare an urgency or distress situation before it becomes an emergency.

Bob Gardner

 

[bobmrg]

No. Erring on the side of caution is never a bad idea. Of course there should be a significant event to tie your concern to: Vibration, hot or smoky smells, odd instrument indications, control anomalies ,etc. If you can land quickly and need no special traffic help then it may not be required, but if in a remote area, or as I was when I first had an emergency a few hundred miles out to sea and if worse come to worse it will give the investigators a clue when they dig through the wreckage. If they find it.

Spoken like a true Coastie. Happy Coast Guard Day!!!

Bob Gardner

 

[DavidWhite]

I got a call this number when I declared, but it was only because I was landing at an uncontrolled field and they wanted to make sure I was all right. I told them I was too busy flying the plane instead of copying the number.

 

[poadeleted20]

I got a call this number when I declared, but it was only because I was landing at an uncontrolled field and they wanted to make sure I was all right. I told them I was too busy flying the plane instead of copying the number.

Good call, but I hope you still did your best to notify them of your safety after landing. They really do worry about you in cases like that.

 

[Captain]

This is one of my biggest peeves. In the professional world of flying I see so many people who do not want to declare and it puzzles me greatly. I say ANY time the successful outcome of the flight is in any doubt then declare.

That's important (to me) so I'll say it again: ANY time the successful outcome of the flight is in any doubt then declare.

I had a Captain once in Port Au Prince scold me for telling tower we're aborting the takeoff. Seems he wanted me to say 'discontinue the takeoff roll'. First, jack bag, we're in fricken Haiti. You could roll a joint, go to the tower and smoke it and then takeoff without a clearance and nothing bad would happen to your career. Second, even if this was MIA who the F cares if I say 'abort takeoff' or 'discontinue the roll'...it's the same fricken thing.

BTW, that was the only engine failure I've ever had and dufuss Eastern Scab sitting next to me wanted to go with it. Happened at ZERO kts when he stood up the power lever and it took him until over 80 kts and me telling him 'That's NOT normal!!!" before we aborted....errrr, 'discontinued our takeoff'.

Point is, for some reason some guys out there are loath to declare. Don't be that guy.


(sorry for the rant...it all just sorta came back. I could go on and on about that night. Spectacular display of inept situational awareness and **** poor piloting ability I've ever seen...)

 

[roncachamp]

Is there ever a reason to not declare an emergency if you believe something is happening in/on/around your aircraft that could likely result in injury to the pilot/passengers or damage to the plane?

I understand the concept of crying wolf. But if something had you seriously concerned and you declared an emergency, only to find once on the ground that it was nothing, would there be any repercussions? Assuming that the landing was normal in all respects, other than the declaration of an emergency.

Normally, there are no repercussions whatsoever in declaring an emergency. That assumes you have a genuine emergency and are not declaring just to get priority handling, or are not engaged in some kind of illegal activity at the time. If the emergency ends uneventfully any "paperwork" will likely be limited to providing name and address.

 

[gismo]

No, there would not be, assuming you did so in good faith. Just don't do so in bad faith like Chris Eden did with his "minimum fuel" declaration.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/3932.PDF

That mirrors what I was thinking. Declaring an emergency causes one or more of three things to happen that may benefit you:

1) Priority handling and enhanced service by ATC.
2) Relaxing of various rules for the pilot and for ATC.
3) Activation of fire suppression/rescue services.

If you invoke this for a genuine safety issue or concern I wouldn't expect much in the way of repercussions. For one thing the ATC and Safety service folks usually get pumped up about being able to help someone in distress and that isn't likely to put them in an infraction reporting frame of mind. But if you try to take advantage of those guys for nothing more than a personal benefit that's not really a safety issue and get caught, those same helpful guys are gonna try and roast your posterior.

 

[Rigged4Flight]

There may very well be repercussions and at least a preliminary investigation ...

My guess is those reasons are probably why some GA pilots never declare. Of course, there are always the emergencies where you don't have the time or ability to declare anything before the sudden stop.

But the question is, if you or a passenger might need the fire trucks or medical assistance when you land, which is more important, ensuring the safety of everyone involved, or worrying about the suits and the paperwork?

This has always been my method of dealing with emergencies. Whether I caused or contributed to it or not - and maybe even because I may have caused/contributed - my willingness to keep something low key ends (hopefully) before somebody gets hurt.

That said, if there is NO upside to informing ATC of what is going on, and no way they could help you either on the ground or before, I would not give them more information than they need to know. By definition, of course, if you have a true emergency, then you are likely to need help from someone as long as there is a chance that someone on board will survive.

Until I found PoA, I don't think I ever considered this side of the equation. Not a consideration if life/limb is in danger, but definitely important, though.

No. Erring on the side of caution is never a bad idea. Of course there should be a significant event to tie your concern to: Vibration, hot or smoky smells, odd instrument indications, control anomalies ,etc. If you can land quickly and need no special traffic help then it may not be required, but if in a remote area, or as I was when I first had an emergency a few hundred miles out to sea and if worse come to worse it will give the investigators a clue when they dig through the wreckage. If they find it.

I was thinking something as simple as a seatbelt outside the door banging on the fuselage. (reminds me of a nasty trick my jumpmaster played on a group of us first time jumpers many moons ago)

 

[poadeleted20]

My guess is those reasons are probably why some GA pilots never declare.

Actually, it is the mistaken belief of imagined repercussions, not any actual fact, which causes folks to refuse to use the E-word.

Of course, there are always the emergencies where you don't have the time or ability to declare anything before the sudden stop.

Diffent story.

 

[Palmpilot]

No repercussions either of the times that I declared an emergency. One time it even happened while I was transitioning (with permission) through a restricted area.

 

[azure]

azure, do you have any specifics about the instances you cite? My own experiences (more than one) are that there are no repercussions, not even a "call this number," when you declare. It is far better to declare than to keep it to yourself. Read AIM 6-1-2...it says to declare an urgency or distress situation before it becomes an emergency.

The first instance I cited happened to me. I was on VFR flight following and noticed a fuel gauge stuck on zero, informed ATC that I was going to make a precautionary landing and the reason why. Three days later an airworthiness inspector left a message on my answering machine that he needed to talk to me about an "emergency" that I had declared (I had not, though ATC had rolled the trucks at the untowered field where I landed even though I had told them it was unnecessary). When I returned the ASI's call, he started asking "fishing expedition" kinds of questions, such as how did I verify that the gauge was in airworthy condition before taking off again, did I have a mechanic look at it, etc. Fortunately, I had spoken to some aviation attorneys and a retired ASI in the meantime, and had an idea of what NOT to say in answering his questions.

The inspector who called me also told me that ATC is required to file paperwork whenever an aircraft in the system diverts prior to reaching its intended destination. I assume that this wording was overly broad and that they only do this when there might be a FAR violation, or airworthiness or medical issue involved. But I could be wrong, and he might have meant it quite literally.

 

[Rigged4Flight]

Just don't do so in bad faith like Chris Eden did with his "minimum fuel" declaration.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/3932.PDF

wow.

That's important (to me) so I'll say it again: ANY time the successful outcome of the flight is in any doubt then declare.

me too

(sorry for the rant...it all just sorta came back. I could go on and on about that night. Spectacular display of inept situational awareness and **** poor piloting ability I've ever seen...)

Don't stop - I'm counting this as extracurricular reading in my pre-training book learning!

Actually, it is the mistaken belief of imagined repercussions, not any actual fact, which causes folks to refuse to use the E-word.

agreed, 100%

 

[azure]

I got a call this number when I declared, but it was only because I was landing at an uncontrolled field and they wanted to make sure I was all right. I told them I was too busy flying the plane instead of copying the number.

I got that too, even though I didn't declare (they rolled the trucks anyway). I actually remembered the number and called them from the restroom after waving off the trucks (didn't have anything handy to write with other than my iPad, and it was way too bumpy to write legibly anyway).

Yes, they were genuinely concerned. But they filed the paperwork too.

 

[Rigged4Flight]

What about non-mechanical "personal" issues that may or may not reach the level of emergency status?

Like... What if instead of doing the $100 Hamburger, you flew instead to an airfield that was hosting The Worlds Largest Chili Cookoff. And you were a tasting judge. On the return flight the various secret ingredients combine with some gastric processes and reduced air pressure and threaten to do nasty things to the inside of your aircraft if you don't land Right Now.

This has to have happened before. (or a variation on the theme, at least) Assuming you are indeed going to have a download of epic proportions at any moment, is there a process to invoke that doesn't entail declaring an emergency?

My guess is if it's bad enough, treat it as an emergency.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

If you the question of should you declare a emergency even crosses your mind, then the answer is yes. Also ATC does not need to know every detail, if you get into something like icing then yea, tell them you have icing, but if its a mechanical issue I would not bother going into detail.

If a inspector calls best default answer is you are busy right now and cant talk, then have your atty call then back.

 

[Captain]

Just a quick observation. Calling it 'the E word' is, imo, part of the problem. Doing so imparts some sort of significance to the simple act of declaring an emergency that may lead some to be hesitant to use the phrase when they should.

It's like the 'F' word. We all know what it is but it's so taboo we don't allow it on TV or mixed company or even on this private forum. Well, declaring an emergency is NOT taboo or shameful or wrong or whatever. It's a duty of the PIC (here it is again...) WHENEVER THE SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME OF THE FLIGHT IS IN ANY DOUBT.

I just think calling it 'the E word' does more harm than good. Especially as I see zero benefit to doing so.

 

[j1b3h0]

That has happened...well, not exactly. Had some Chinese food at the Pittsburg airport and, shortly after takeoff, came down with a bad case of the green apple quick step. Told my Copilot I might be a few minutes, and left the cockpit. I practically had to run to the lavatory. Had I been single-pilot, I would have diverted for sure. Would not have been pretty. Probably wouldn't have declared an emergency, because it wouldn't have made any difference.

 

[Sac Arrow]

How do you guys feel about asking for a precautionary landing vs. declaring if it's iffy?

For example, I had my ailerons lock up on me in flight, and I asked for a precautionary landing on a non active runway I happened to be lined up with. I had rudder only steering. They gave it to me. I was ready to play the E card if I needed but to the extent they cleared me for the desired non active, I didn't see the value.

BTW I landed without incident and that was the end of it.

 

[j1b3h0]

Flight control failures are a definate emergency.

 

[Captain]

wow.


Don't stop - I'm counting this as extracurricular reading in my pre-training book learning!

Here ya go. I made a separate thread just for you! Enjoy.


My Haiti Story

 

[westslopeco]

For example, I had my ailerons lock up on me in flight,.

A major flight control "locks up" and it is not an emergency?!?

 

[Captain]

How do you guys feel about asking for a precautionary landing vs. declaring if it's iffy?

For example, I had my ailerons lock up on me in flight, and I asked for a precautionary landing on a non active runway I happened to be lined up with. I had rudder only steering. They gave it to me. I was ready to play the E card if I needed but to the extent they cleared me for the desired non active, I didn't see the value.

BTW I landed without incident and that was the end of it.

Flight Control issues are always an emergency as it PUTS THE SAFE OUTCOME OF THE FLIGHT IN DOUBT.

Engine failures are easy too...always an emergency. Loss of cabin pressure and you can't keep the cabin below 10,000? Emergency. Above 10,000 non-pressurized and you lose O2? Emergency.


(Okay, that last one about O2 has exceptions. The FARs list altitudes for different operations. I use a blanket 10,000 though and it works for me. You get the idea though...)

 

[Rigged4Flight]

That has happened...well, not exactly. Had some Chinese food at the Pittsburg airport and, shortly after takeoff, came down with a bad case of the green apple quick step.

Note to self: do NOT eat the Chinese food at the Pittsburg airport!

How do you guys feel about asking for a precautionary landing vs. declaring if it's iffy?

For example, I had my ailerons lock up on me in flight, and I asked for a precautionary landing on a non active runway I happened to be lined up with. I had rudder only steering. They gave it to me. I was ready to play the E card if I needed but to the extent they cleared me for the desired non active, I didn't see the value.

BTW I landed without incident and that was the end of it.

This thought process has served me well in many situations: What is the very worst that can happen? Make a decision based on that.

I fully intend to continue using this when I begin my flight training.

 

[Sac Arrow]

A major flight control "locks up" and it is not an emergency?!?

Flight Control issues are always an emergency as it PUTS THE SAFE OUTCOME OF THE FLIGHT IN DOUBT.

Engine failures are easy too...always an emergency. Loss of cabin pressure and you can't keep the cabin below 10,000? Emergency. Above 10,000 non-pressurized and you lose O2? Emergency.


(Okay, that last one about O2 has exceptions. The FARs list altitudes for different operations. I use a blanket 10,000 though and it works for me. You get the idea though...)

I'm not asking whether that is an emergency! I'm asking whether in that specific set of circumstances it would have been more prudent to declare initially, given that I already had priority handling.

 

[Palmpilot]

How do you guys feel about asking for a precautionary landing vs. declaring if it's iffy?

For example, I had my ailerons lock up on me in flight, and I asked for a precautionary landing on a non active runway I happened to be lined up with. I had rudder only steering. They gave it to me. I was ready to play the E card if I needed but to the extent they cleared me for the desired non active, I didn't see the value.

BTW I landed without incident and that was the end of it.

If flight control failure doesn't warrant an emergency declaration, what does?

I would have asked for an emergency landing, not a precautionary landing. As for the value, if nothing else, declaring clears from my mind any further need to think about whether it's time to declare or not. And a flight control failure does not sound to me like a situation where it would be prudent to delay them in rolling the fire trucks by delaying your declaration until you're sure it's needed.

 

[Captain]

I'm not asking whether that is an emergency! I'm asking whether in that specific set of circumstances it would have been more prudent to declare initially, given that I already had priority handling.

Well, I'm thinking it doesn't really matter. When you told tower your ailerons were jammed (you must have told them as they cleared to land on a taxi way right?) that right there was you declaring an emergency.

ATC has full authority to declare an emergency for you and it sounds like that's what they did. In the end in this story it sounds to me like your calling or not calling didn't matter.

A year or two ago I listened on the radio as some regional jet was losing their cabin. There was panic in the guys voice and he kept asking for lower and ATC couldn't give it to him. After a while he came back on and asked again. ATC said unable.

Then he came on again with the panic I spoke of and said the cabin was climbing through 8,000' and could he PLEASE have lower. The ATC supervisor came on and declared an emergency for the weak crew/Captain (imo) and immediately cleared them lower.


oppp, there I go being negative again...

: )

 

[Palmpilot]

oppp, there I go being negative again...

Sometimes it's justified!

 

[Velocity173]

Yeah it doesn't have to be the pilot who declares an emergency. If you report something to ATC and in their opinion it warrants an emergency, they'll declare it. Example, I was working an Aztec one day on approach who lost his engine. Now the pilot didn't declare and obviously he has another engine. I declared based upon 2 additional factors. He said he ran out of gas and needed the closest airport. In my mind that means he's about to lose the other one from fuel exhaustion. I vectored him to the nearest airport (73J) and gave him all available info for the field. I didn't give him my number because he doesn't need to be trying to write things down while handling an emergency single pilot. I simply called the FBO to check on him. Come to find out he just bought the thing and was ferrying it home. Also he had only 4 gals left on the other side.

Forget about paperwork. Unless you deviate from a clearance to meet that emergency and no one is delayed then why the worry? Yes, ATC has some paperwork but that consists of the Sup making an entry on his log describing the emergency. The controller puts a big red E on his strip and from then on you have priority handling. No problems.

I declared an emergency on my Velocity because my right main was stuck up. I then continued on my flight to Melborne Fl since I was delivering it to Velocity to have the condition done. What better place to fix a gear up landing. Half way down JAX center asks if I want crash trucks standing by. After a bit of though I said yes. I figure I'll at least need someone to help me move it off the runway. At any rate I was able to get the gear down with a little positive G. It remained locked and the landing was uneventful. A few days later an FAA inspector called wanting details of the emergency. He said he was going to log this as an occurrence and not an incident, however a month later this did show up on FAA records as an incident. Oh well still no hassle on my end.

So really I see no need to hold back declaring and emergency if you believe the safety of your craft or yourself is in danger. The minor red tape involved might be worth it simply to get priority handling.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Well, I'm thinking it doesn't really matter. When you told tower your ailerons were jammed (you must have told them as they cleared to land on a taxi way right?) that right there was you declaring an emergency.

ATC has full authority to declare an emergency for you and it sounds like that's what they did. In the end in this story it sounds to me like your calling or not calling didn't matter.

A year or two ago I listened on the radio as some regional jet was losing their cabin. There was panic in the guys voice and he kept asking for lower and ATC couldn't give it to him. After a while he came back on and asked again. ATC said unable.

Then he came on again with the panic I spoke of and said the cabin was climbing through 8,000' and could he PLEASE have lower. The ATC supervisor came on and declared an emergency for the weak crew/Captain (imo) and immediately cleared them lower.


oppp, there I go being negative again...

: )

That was very likely the case now that I think about it. No I didn't land on a taxiway, just a big, fat, intersecting non-active runway.

 

[FlyingDeacon]

Like my CFI told me, there are no emergency take offs, but if you think something will compromise safety if flight, then declare an emergency.

 

[poadeleted20]

The first instance I cited happened to me. I was on VFR flight following and noticed a fuel gauge stuck on zero, informed ATC that I was going to make a precautionary landing and the reason why. Three days later an airworthiness inspector left a message on my answering machine that he needed to talk to me about an "emergency" that I had declared (I had not, though ATC had rolled the trucks at the untowered field where I landed even though I had told them it was unnecessary). When I returned the ASI's call, he started asking "fishing expedition" kinds of questions, such as how did I verify that the gauge was in airworthy condition before taking off again, did I have a mechanic look at it, etc. Fortunately, I had spoken to some aviation attorneys and a retired ASI in the meantime, and had an idea of what NOT to say in answering his questions.

If you were a "person of interest," it would have been an ops inspector calling. The airworthiness inspector is just trying to determine if there is a maintenance problem which needs to be reported as an SDR/MDR so other pilots owith the same equipment can be warned of the issue. That is a safety issue, which is their primary job, not a "fishing expedition" trying to hang you with an enforcement action. Normally, this task is handled by the safety program folks at the FSDO, not the regular inspectors.

We just had a similar situation here, where a pilot had a serious electrical fire in flight, and just barely made it to Salisbury with a cockpit full of smoke. An airworthiness inspector came out to look at the plane and try to figure out what went wrong. The mechanic working on the plane showed it to him, it was clearly not a material problem, and that was that.

Oh yes -- the ops inspector along for the ride asked me as a FAASTeam Rep to talk to the pilot about the importance of turning off the master switch in that situation rather than keeping it on to be able to talk with ATC in good visual flighht conditions. That would have limited the damage, stopped the generation of toxic smoke, and made their approach and landing a whole lot less exciting.

 

[azure]

If you were a "person of interest," it would have been an ops inspector calling. The airworthiness inspector is just trying to determine if there is a maintenance problem which needs to be reported as an SDR/MDR so other pilots owith the same equipment can be warned of the issue. That is a safety issue, which is their primary job, not a "fishing expedition" trying to hang you with an enforcement action. Normally, this task is handled by the safety program folks at the FSDO, not the regular inspectors.

What safety issue would be addressed by asking me about my preflight actions after the precautionary landing? I could see him asking me whether I had had a mechanic look at it since the occurrence, but that's not what he asked.

I should have added that the reason I thought this was an airworthiness inspector was that I looked up his name on the FSDO personnel list. He did not identify himself as an airworthiness inspector, he just said his name was so and so and he was from a certain FAA District Office. For all I know that personnel list was outdated, and he now was an ops inspector, or maybe he was working with an ops inspector on this.

 

[azure]

If flight control failure doesn't warrant an emergency declaration, what does?

Agree with that, a precautionary landing is what I asked for in my situation (fuel gauge suspicious reading). I had plenty of fuel in the other tank even if the gauge was reading accurately, but I wanted to land to figure out what was going on.

And yes, ATC declared an emergency for me -- they were a LOT more cautious and concerned about the situation than I was. Even if the one tank had leaked all its fuel out, I wouldn't consider an empty fuel tank to be a hazard on the ground. I had plenty of fuel in the other tank for a normal safe landing.

 

[Jaybird180]

No, there is not.
No, there would not be, assuming you did so in good faith. Just don't do so in bad faith like Chris Eden did with his "minimum fuel" declaration.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/3932.PDF

azure, do you have any specifics about the instances you cite? My own experiences (more than one) are that there are no repercussions, not even a "call this number," when you declare. It is far better to declare than to keep it to yourself. Read AIM 6-1-2...it says to declare an urgency or distress situation before it becomes an emergency.

Bob Gardner

I read through the case that Ron cited above and it seems to me that the ATP used the reasoning that Bob did on emergency.

Not sure I understand all the drama of his case, but I thought them calling his reasoning and statement "blatantly false" and "bad faith" a bit harsh. Paired with Bob's narrative of AIM 6-1-2, it appears to me the Administrator's reasoning is argumentative and specious. Again, not sure I grasped all of it so I'm hoping that someone can clear it up for me. The reason, I'll explain:

Prior to reading that case, I had the same interpretation Captain used in several postings in this thread on declaring EMERGENCY (there I said it). I don't think I have any hangups with it. But after reading that case, I'm not sure I would use the same interpretation Bob used above....unless I'm over-reaching.