Contacted- I, and everyone else who has existed in the ME environment, knows full well the blame game is inappropriate, but is the reality. However, after this statement
We should not accept a situation where neither the pilot or the controller is sure whether an emergency exists or not. "Just to be safe, let him go ahead and land." Not good enough! When aircraft are carrying 100s of passengers who should rightly expect better.
What are you saying should happen? I'm really interested to know what those who think ATC did wrong here think should happen.
1.) Should ATC spend time- when it must be busy (holding)- trying to determine exactly what the english-not-great pilot means when after being asked the second time if he is declaring an emergency that "I have no fuel for holding"? Is he saying he needs to land immediately (as in the Avianca accident), but under pressure he is having trouble conveying that?
2.) Should ATC, believing there is scope for an Avianca-like event, and
unable to get a clear response from the pilot that THAT IS NOT THE CASE within a reasonable time/effort framework, declare on his behalf and jump him in and deal with the Capts issue ( I am trying to make this clear here- when asked ARE YOU DECLARING AN EMERGENCY? and your answer is anything other than AFFIRMATIVE or NEGATIVE, then it's the captains issue and YES, the pax down the back deserve better) when he is safe on the ground?
3.) Should ATC, without hearing the words "I am declaring an emergency" just put him in the stack and proceed as normal, regardless of whatever else is said?
In this case, there was no ambiguity, the controller declared an emergency on his behalf, and proceeded accordingly. From an ATC point of view- very well done. Turned an ambiguous, possibly deadly situation into a positively handled, routine situation. All ended well, except for the monday quarterbacks now bitching about whether ATC handled it correctly.
Up to somebody else how that Captain is handled once the parking brake is on.