[jtagen]

I wonder if it was an option to say "okay", continue circling, then declare a fuel emergency and land. Seems like ATC was being a dick here.

Not sure: 1) How long this would take 2) If this actually endangers anyone/anything

[kspacewalk2]

Seems like ATC has dozens of airplanes to route and cannot give preference to those who have the strictest company policy and complain the loudest.

[FireBeyond]

They can and do all the time. ATC would also have known the previous shift that this flight was late and would require it.

As for requiring it on company policy, I'm not entirely sure that our ATC policies should focus on "well, you don't need to be that safe".

[kayodelycaon]

Declaring a fuel emergency when your alternative is only a few miles away is bound to get someone in trouble.

[JAlexoid]

The fuel emergency would have been literally a result of the ATC staff. Instead of this back and forth, the answer should have been - we cannot take you on ILS in the next X time, consider diverting.

Giving the sense of "we'll take you in within X minutes" to the pilot is disingenuous at best. ATCs job is literally safety.

[renewiltord]

If you get to that point and you haven't diverted you're losing your job AFAIK. "I just followed instructions and ended up in an emergency" won't fly. ATC isn't flying the plane.

[kabes]

Problem is that emergencies also involve a lot of paperwork and delay for the pilot.