Originally Posted by justageek
I believe that any situation in which a pilot needs ATC to expedite the approach due to fuel issues is called a "fuel emergency." If the pilot foresaw more ATC-related delay than he had spare fuel, I could see him declaring an emergency as the only way to bypass the delay.
In other words, it's conceivable that the pilot had more than enough fuel for normal traffic congestion levels, but not for the conditions at the time he was approaching the destination.
As a pilot, I can assure you that the fuel advisory issued by the DL pilot was not done lightly or frivolously. It is a matter of semantics as to whether an "emergency" was declared. The pilot knows that declaring an emergency triggers all kinds of audits and investigations. The controllers, however, have to have a vailid and defensible reason for allowing an aircraft to take "shortcuts" and expedited handling that would ordinarily be denied.
I remember a conversation I once had with ATC controllers while flying in clouds and picking up ice (we are talking small aircraft here). I needed to change to a lower altitude that was ordinarily not available on my routing.
I was asked if I needed to decalre an emergency. I "lobbed the serve" back to the controller: "Not if you clear me down to 6000," I replied. I got the lower altitude approved without declaring an emergency.
But there are cases with airplanes have crashed because the pilots were unwilling to spell out the urgent nature of the situation to controllers (Avianca 707 crash on Long Island).
Please trust me... speculation that the DL pilot was playing some kind of game here is absurd to the highest degree.