Narrative:

During a flight from vienna, austria (loww) and willow run airport (kyip), which is adjacent to the detroit metropolitan airport (kdtw), a mechanical problem with the fuel system became evident. Fuel in the #1A tank was not available (10000 pounds). The flight had departed with 18000 pounds of fuel above minimum dispatch. More than enough fuel remained to complete flight to destination. There were no other problems with the fuel system or with any other system. Contingency plans were made to land en route if any additional fuel problems arose. The plans also called for, that if any ctlability problems were felt due to any fuel imbal, that a diversion to dtw would be made. This would allow higher approach speeds to longer runways. The facts of the situation and plans were relayed to the company and at a later time were discussed with the company via phone patch. During notification to company the term 'emergency' was used. In what context I don't recall but not with any referral to a current flight emergency. If a flight emergency had existed a landing at the most suitable airport would have been made. The company gave advance notice of my situation to dtw approach control. I had planned to request priority handling from approach control. Often considerable vectoring is done on approachs to yip due to traffic at dtw. I wanted to minimize vectoring and make a long straight in final to runway 23L at yip. On initial contact the controller asked if I was declaring an emergency. Which I did. Again the use of 'emergency' was not due to any immediate danger or safety of flight requiring immediate action, but I wanted to obtain the priority handling. The approach and landing were accomplished without any difficulty. It was actually a non event. Looking back, it's obvious that I could have continued the flight without anyone knowing that anything was abnormal. The flight was met by customs, agriculture and FAA inspectors, in that order. The FAA immediately questions as to why an immediate landing had not been made and why I had continued to original destination. The second-guessing and the threats of violation certainly does not set well with pilots nor their companies. Continuing flight with an engine inoperative has been addressed by FARS. Certainly every situation can't be covered by FARS. We have a system that is based on training and judgement which is terribly undermined by the FAA, when they use catch all regulations to cite pilots. This is not promoting air safety. And in this case the FAA inspector is second-guessing when and how and for what purpose is the use of emergency authority/authorized. The conclusion just came to me and that is, 'if an emergency is declared then there must be a violation!'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WDB ON FERRY FLT DECLARES EMER WHEN FUEL AVAILABILITY WAS PROB. NOT REAL EMER.

Narrative: DURING A FLT FROM VIENNA, AUSTRIA (LOWW) AND WILLOW RUN ARPT (KYIP), WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE DETROIT METRO ARPT (KDTW), A MECHANICAL PROB WITH THE FUEL SYS BECAME EVIDENT. FUEL IN THE #1A TANK WAS NOT AVAILABLE (10000 LBS). THE FLT HAD DEPARTED WITH 18000 LBS OF FUEL ABOVE MINIMUM DISPATCH. MORE THAN ENOUGH FUEL REMAINED TO COMPLETE FLT TO DEST. THERE WERE NO OTHER PROBS WITH THE FUEL SYS OR WITH ANY OTHER SYS. CONTINGENCY PLANS WERE MADE TO LAND ENRTE IF ANY ADDITIONAL FUEL PROBS AROSE. THE PLANS ALSO CALLED FOR, THAT IF ANY CTLABILITY PROBS WERE FELT DUE TO ANY FUEL IMBAL, THAT A DIVERSION TO DTW WOULD BE MADE. THIS WOULD ALLOW HIGHER APCH SPDS TO LONGER RWYS. THE FACTS OF THE SIT AND PLANS WERE RELAYED TO THE COMPANY AND AT A LATER TIME WERE DISCUSSED WITH THE COMPANY VIA PHONE PATCH. DURING NOTIFICATION TO COMPANY THE TERM 'EMER' WAS USED. IN WHAT CONTEXT I DON'T RECALL BUT NOT WITH ANY REFERRAL TO A CURRENT FLT EMER. IF A FLT EMER HAD EXISTED A LNDG AT THE MOST SUITABLE ARPT WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE. THE COMPANY GAVE ADVANCE NOTICE OF MY SIT TO DTW APCH CTL. I HAD PLANNED TO REQUEST PRIORITY HANDLING FROM APCH CTL. OFTEN CONSIDERABLE VECTORING IS DONE ON APCHS TO YIP DUE TO TFC AT DTW. I WANTED TO MINIMIZE VECTORING AND MAKE A LONG STRAIGHT IN FINAL TO RWY 23L AT YIP. ON INITIAL CONTACT THE CTLR ASKED IF I WAS DECLARING AN EMER. WHICH I DID. AGAIN THE USE OF 'EMER' WAS NOT DUE TO ANY IMMEDIATE DANGER OR SAFETY OF FLT REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ACTION, BUT I WANTED TO OBTAIN THE PRIORITY HANDLING. THE APCH AND LNDG WERE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT ANY DIFFICULTY. IT WAS ACTUALLY A NON EVENT. LOOKING BACK, IT'S OBVIOUS THAT I COULD HAVE CONTINUED THE FLT WITHOUT ANYONE KNOWING THAT ANYTHING WAS ABNORMAL. THE FLT WAS MET BY CUSTOMS, AGRICULTURE AND FAA INSPECTORS, IN THAT ORDER. THE FAA IMMEDIATELY QUESTIONS AS TO WHY AN IMMEDIATE LNDG HAD NOT BEEN MADE AND WHY I HAD CONTINUED TO ORIGINAL DEST. THE SECOND-GUESSING AND THE THREATS OF VIOLATION CERTAINLY DOES NOT SET WELL WITH PLTS NOR THEIR COMPANIES. CONTINUING FLT WITH AN ENG INOP HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY FARS. CERTAINLY EVERY SIT CAN'T BE COVERED BY FARS. WE HAVE A SYS THAT IS BASED ON TRAINING AND JUDGEMENT WHICH IS TERRIBLY UNDERMINED BY THE FAA, WHEN THEY USE CATCH ALL REGS TO CITE PLTS. THIS IS NOT PROMOTING AIR SAFETY. AND IN THIS CASE THE FAA INSPECTOR IS SECOND-GUESSING WHEN AND HOW AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE IS THE USE OF EMER AUTH. THE CONCLUSION JUST CAME TO ME AND THAT IS, 'IF AN EMER IS DECLARED THEN THERE MUST BE A VIOLATION!'

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.