Narrative:

When past lbf, ZDV controller request we descend to FL280. Copilot told him we could not descend because we would be short on fuel at den. Controller again requested that we descend to FL280. I told him that we were unable to descend, that we needed to stay at FL390 because of fuel consideration. After a few moments he asked us to declare an emergency. I told him that there was no emergency, we were not declaring an emergency, but we needed to stay at FL390 because of fuel considerations. After several mins he came back and stated he was 'declaring an emergency for (our) flight,' to maintain FL390 and to call a phone number (which he gave us) when we got on the ground. I then went into detail about our fuel load and why we needed to stay at FL390. I told him that if we had to descend to FL280 we would have to turn back and return to lbf for fuel, that we would rather continue on to den. I stated again that we were not declaring an emergency. From that point on the flight continued normally. We were allowed to stay at FL390 until we were close enough to den to make a normal descent with the usual crossing restriction at keann intersection. When on the ground I called the # given us and spoke with a den ARTCC watch supervisor. I explained to him what had happened. He told me I should be aware that the situation might be given to the FAA for enforcement action because of pilot deviation from controller's instructions. Several hours later I received a call from lnk FSDO. An operations inspector said enforcement action had not begun yet, that he had been brought in the loop by the den FSDO because the incident had happened over northeast. He was to get back to the den ARTCC personnel with his opinion. He said he had been an small transport pilot, that he understood our need to stay at FL390, and that in his opinion there was nothing to the charge of 'pilot deviation' and that it ought to be dropped. The following day (2/wed/89) I again spoke with operations inspector. He said he had quite a time getting the den ARTCC personnel to understand what happened, that he had to explain to them how we as corp pltsoperate our aircraft, how a change in altitude affects fuel burn in turbo jet aircraft. He again explained to them the situation from our perspective. They asked him what he would do if they filed a violation report on us. He told them he would be required to fill out his corresponding paperwork but that he would say there had been no violation and no enforcement action would be brought against us. The den ARTCC personnel then agreed not to file their report. Den ARTCC personnel also told him that their request for us to descend so far from den was SOP. When he asked them why we had to descend so far out, they told him it was the air carrier's could stay at FL390. I believe communication should have been more explicit between crew and controller. We as crew could have communicated our fuel and altitude requirements more clearly to the controller at his initial request. However, in previous similar situations we have not had any problems by stating in effect that 'because of fuel consideration, unable to descend.' controllers have always understood this type of request and have worked out alternate plans. The controller should have made clear his needs and altitude requirements to us as crew. If there was absolutely no way he could leave us at FL390 he should have told us and we could have requested routing back to north platte for fuel. When we did try to explain our needs to him, all we got back was, 'I don't have time to talk with you about it.' there seemed to be a lack of understanding on the part of the controller as to altitude considerations on fuel planning and the operation of turbo jet aircraft in the high altitude structure. He also did not seem to recognize that I, as PIC, have the final authority as to how my aircraft should be operated. A definite bias against corp business aircraft has been implied in this situation. The reason we were requested to descend to FL280 so early was so that air carrier aircraft behind us could have our airspace. According to den ARTCC personnel, early dscnts such as we were given are SOP for flts arriving den. If this is so, there has been no indication of it to the corp aviation community. Clear notice should be give to those using this airspace about such procedures because of the impact it would make on flight planning and fuel planning.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ARTCC THREATENS TO VIOLATE CORP SMT WHEN FLT CREW REQUEST MAINTAIN ALT DUE TO FUEL STATE.

Narrative: WHEN PAST LBF, ZDV CTLR REQUEST WE DSND TO FL280. COPLT TOLD HIM WE COULD NOT DSND BECAUSE WE WOULD BE SHORT ON FUEL AT DEN. CTLR AGAIN REQUESTED THAT WE DSND TO FL280. I TOLD HIM THAT WE WERE UNABLE TO DSND, THAT WE NEEDED TO STAY AT FL390 BECAUSE OF FUEL CONSIDERATION. AFTER A FEW MOMENTS HE ASKED US TO DECLARE AN EMER. I TOLD HIM THAT THERE WAS NO EMER, WE WERE NOT DECLARING AN EMER, BUT WE NEEDED TO STAY AT FL390 BECAUSE OF FUEL CONSIDERATIONS. AFTER SEVERAL MINS HE CAME BACK AND STATED HE WAS 'DECLARING AN EMER FOR (OUR) FLT,' TO MAINTAIN FL390 AND TO CALL A PHONE NUMBER (WHICH HE GAVE US) WHEN WE GOT ON THE GND. I THEN WENT INTO DETAIL ABOUT OUR FUEL LOAD AND WHY WE NEEDED TO STAY AT FL390. I TOLD HIM THAT IF WE HAD TO DSND TO FL280 WE WOULD HAVE TO TURN BACK AND RETURN TO LBF FOR FUEL, THAT WE WOULD RATHER CONTINUE ON TO DEN. I STATED AGAIN THAT WE WERE NOT DECLARING AN EMER. FROM THAT POINT ON THE FLT CONTINUED NORMALLY. WE WERE ALLOWED TO STAY AT FL390 UNTIL WE WERE CLOSE ENOUGH TO DEN TO MAKE A NORMAL DSCNT WITH THE USUAL XING RESTRICTION AT KEANN INTXN. WHEN ON THE GND I CALLED THE # GIVEN US AND SPOKE WITH A DEN ARTCC WATCH SUPVR. I EXPLAINED TO HIM WHAT HAD HAPPENED. HE TOLD ME I SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THE SITUATION MIGHT BE GIVEN TO THE FAA FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION BECAUSE OF PLT DEVIATION FROM CTLR'S INSTRUCTIONS. SEVERAL HRS LATER I RECEIVED A CALL FROM LNK FSDO. AN OPS INSPECTOR SAID ENFORCEMENT ACTION HAD NOT BEGUN YET, THAT HE HAD BEEN BROUGHT IN THE LOOP BY THE DEN FSDO BECAUSE THE INCIDENT HAD HAPPENED OVER NE. HE WAS TO GET BACK TO THE DEN ARTCC PERSONNEL WITH HIS OPINION. HE SAID HE HAD BEEN AN SMT PLT, THAT HE UNDERSTOOD OUR NEED TO STAY AT FL390, AND THAT IN HIS OPINION THERE WAS NOTHING TO THE CHARGE OF 'PLTDEV' AND THAT IT OUGHT TO BE DROPPED. THE FOLLOWING DAY (2/WED/89) I AGAIN SPOKE WITH OPS INSPECTOR. HE SAID HE HAD QUITE A TIME GETTING THE DEN ARTCC PERSONNEL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED, THAT HE HAD TO EXPLAIN TO THEM HOW WE AS CORP PLTSOPERATE OUR ACFT, HOW A CHANGE IN ALT AFFECTS FUEL BURN IN TURBO JET ACFT. HE AGAIN EXPLAINED TO THEM THE SITUATION FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. THEY ASKED HIM WHAT HE WOULD DO IF THEY FILED A VIOLATION RPT ON US. HE TOLD THEM HE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FILL OUT HIS CORRESPONDING PAPERWORK BUT THAT HE WOULD SAY THERE HAD BEEN NO VIOLATION AND NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION WOULD BE BROUGHT AGAINST US. THE DEN ARTCC PERSONNEL THEN AGREED NOT TO FILE THEIR RPT. DEN ARTCC PERSONNEL ALSO TOLD HIM THAT THEIR REQUEST FOR US TO DSND SO FAR FROM DEN WAS SOP. WHEN HE ASKED THEM WHY WE HAD TO DSND SO FAR OUT, THEY TOLD HIM IT WAS THE ACR'S COULD STAY AT FL390. I BELIEVE COM SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE EXPLICIT BTWN CREW AND CTLR. WE AS CREW COULD HAVE COMMUNICATED OUR FUEL AND ALT REQUIREMENTS MORE CLEARLY TO THE CTLR AT HIS INITIAL REQUEST. HOWEVER, IN PREVIOUS SIMILAR SITUATIONS WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY PROBS BY STATING IN EFFECT THAT 'BECAUSE OF FUEL CONSIDERATION, UNABLE TO DSND.' CTLRS HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THIS TYPE OF REQUEST AND HAVE WORKED OUT ALTERNATE PLANS. THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE MADE CLEAR HIS NEEDS AND ALT REQUIREMENTS TO US AS CREW. IF THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY HE COULD LEAVE US AT FL390 HE SHOULD HAVE TOLD US AND WE COULD HAVE REQUESTED ROUTING BACK TO NORTH PLATTE FOR FUEL. WHEN WE DID TRY TO EXPLAIN OUR NEEDS TO HIM, ALL WE GOT BACK WAS, 'I DON'T HAVE TIME TO TALK WITH YOU ABOUT IT.' THERE SEEMED TO BE A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF THE CTLR AS TO ALT CONSIDERATIONS ON FUEL PLANNING AND THE OPERATION OF TURBO JET ACFT IN THE HIGH ALT STRUCTURE. HE ALSO DID NOT SEEM TO RECOGNIZE THAT I, AS PIC, HAVE THE FINAL AUTHORITY AS TO HOW MY ACFT SHOULD BE OPERATED. A DEFINITE BIAS AGAINST CORP BUSINESS ACFT HAS BEEN IMPLIED IN THIS SITUATION. THE REASON WE WERE REQUESTED TO DSND TO FL280 SO EARLY WAS SO THAT ACR ACFT BEHIND US COULD HAVE OUR AIRSPACE. ACCORDING TO DEN ARTCC PERSONNEL, EARLY DSCNTS SUCH AS WE WERE GIVEN ARE SOP FOR FLTS ARRIVING DEN. IF THIS IS SO, THERE HAS BEEN NO INDICATION OF IT TO THE CORP AVIATION COMMUNITY. CLEAR NOTICE SHOULD BE GIVE TO THOSE USING THIS AIRSPACE ABOUT SUCH PROCS BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT IT WOULD MAKE ON FLT PLANNING AND FUEL PLANNING.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.