Narrative:

There were two events that happened at almost the same time; so I am putting them in the same report. Aircraft X was level at 10000 feet deviating for weather then went non-radar. We have been instructed that this constitutes a deviation that we need to declare on behalf of the pilot. Due to workload; the radar controller was unable to do this. A few minutes later the pilot informed us they were back on course; which also constitutes an emergency; then requested direct [fix] which again is an emergency situation all due to being non radar. There was a significant weather line west of the pilot's track. Their filed routing was obvious for the weather; so we gave direct [fix] knowing that the pilot has the best and most accurate view of the weather they can see out their window. The radar controller called the weather to the aircraft as best as possible. We never declared an emergency due to the amount of traffic in the sector.shortly after aircraft Y on the same route was level at 10000 feet then we lost radar; the pilot then requested weather deviations. Same situation; we have been informed to declare an emergency for the pilot; but due to workload were unable to. This would have made 2 concurrent emergencies in an already very busy sector.something must be done so that we can provide service to non-radar aircraft without declaring an emergency. Our staffing is already; in my opinion; so low that it is unsafe; and we are overwhelmed with traffic; few breaks; and now this additional workload. Both of these issues (the new direction to declare an emergency any time that a non-radar aircraft needs to alter their route at all; and the dangerously low staffing levels) need to be addressed as quickly as possible.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZLC controllers reported being instructed to declare an emergency for any aircraft in the non-radar environment that requests weather deviations despite heavy workload and short staff.

Narrative: There were two events that happened at almost the same time; so I am putting them in the same report. Aircraft X was level at 10000 feet deviating for weather then went non-radar. We have been instructed that this constitutes a deviation that we need to declare on behalf of the pilot. Due to workload; the Radar Controller was unable to do this. A few minutes later the pilot informed us they were back on course; which also constitutes an emergency; then requested direct [fix] which again is an emergency situation all due to being non radar. There was a significant weather line west of the pilot's track. Their filed routing was obvious for the weather; so we gave direct [fix] knowing that the pilot has the best and most accurate view of the weather they can see out their window. The Radar Controller called the weather to the aircraft as best as possible. We never declared an emergency due to the amount of traffic in the sector.Shortly after Aircraft Y on the same route was level at 10000 feet then we lost radar; the pilot then requested weather deviations. Same situation; we have been informed to declare an emergency for the pilot; but due to workload were unable to. This would have made 2 concurrent emergencies in an already very busy sector.Something must be done so that we can provide service to non-radar aircraft without declaring an emergency. Our staffing is already; in my opinion; so low that it is unsafe; and we are overwhelmed with traffic; few breaks; and now this additional workload. Both of these issues (the new direction to declare an emergency any time that a non-radar aircraft needs to alter their route at all; and the dangerously low staffing levels) need to be addressed as quickly as possible.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.