dns
Seems there are some quite worrying misinterpretations of the regs...
"A pilot who encounters a DISTRESS condition may declare an emergency by beginning the initial communication with the word MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times. For an URGENCY condition, the word PAN-PAN may be used in the same manner."
When trying to interpret regs it would behoove you to first start at the beginning where they define the meaning of certain words found therein....
14 CFR Part 1.3
Rules of construction.
(b) In Subchapters A through K of this chapter, the word:
(1)
Shall is used in an
imperative sense;
(2)
May is used in a
permissive sense to state authority or permission to do the act prescribed....
Doing so would prevent you from coming to this mistaken conclusion....
The whole "declaring an emergency" instead of calling "mayday" thing that people are on about is nonsense. The regs clearly state that the emergency should declared by the use of a mayday or pan call.
See, you're confusing the word "may" with the imperative construction-word "shall". What confuses me is you then went on to use "should" as if that word is an imperative, when it's not. Were you perhaps looking for something along the lines of "The regs clearly state that the emergency "must be" declared" or "will be" etc.? Well, even if you were using a more appropriate word your assertion is still wrong because the Regs clearly state "may", not "shall". It doesn't even say "should". All you've done with that referenced material is show that "Mayday" and "Pan-pan" are permissible, recognized, and will be responded to.
That's how they write in Reg-land, and there is a difference between one and the other (may/shall). If there wasn't they wouldn't have spent all that ink telling you there is. This clarification right from the start, by them, is designed to prevent misinterpretation, like your written one above.
In fact, the use of "may" vs "shall" is so pervasive in the regs the distinction between the 2 is considered to be fundamental knowledge for even student pilots reading them for the first time. Ground school 101 stuff. I find you less and less credible as time goes on.
Yes, the controller should have handled it as an emergency as a precaution, but the pilot made an error by not declaring using the standard phraseology.
He did use standard phraseology. He was in the U.S. and used "Emergency", which is not an error. I'm worried that you say you're an FAA-trained pilot and don't know that, and seem to disregard and ignore the existence of the published FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary.