[pdonis]

> American Airlines (at JFK) proved you can call emergency just because you feel like it with no repercussion.

I don't think it's that simple. In the AA case you refer to, the pilot was concerned about the high crosswind on the runway ATC wanted him to land on, so he declared an emergency so he could land on a safer runway. Crosswind landings are dicey at the best of times, and I suspect that if the AA pilot didn't get any repercussions it was because in that situation his action was considered a reasonable judgment call. Yes, technically it wasn't an "emergency" since nothing was wrong with the plane, but it was in the sense that the pilot did not think he could safely land on the runway ATC wanted him to land on, so it was a safety issue.

[danielschonfeld]

Following along that logic. Nobody would fault the LH pilot for a similar judgement call requiring an immediate landing at the closest suitable airport, namely SFO.

ATC was in the wrong here and the attitude displayed was neither called for nor professional.

[pdonis]

> Nobody would fault the LH pilot for a similar judgement call

Bad analogy. The LH pilot's reason for asking for an ILS approach was company policy; he made no claim that he was unable to make a visual landing safely because of actual conditions, only that his company wouldn't allow him to make a visual landing as a matter of policy.

> ATC was in the wrong here and the attitude displayed was neither called for nor professional.

Many other posters in this discussion have pointed out aspects of the situation that make it clear that it wasn't that simple.

[kqr]

And this is (should be, at least) good practise. When there's an emergency, you don't want pilots second-guessing that radio call because they are worried about repercussions if they understood the situation wrong.